The U.S. Supreme Court case Time, Inc. v. Firestone in 1975 revolved around the issue of defamation and public figures' right to privacy. Mary Alice Firestone sued Time Magazine for libel after it published an article about her divorce that she claimed contained false information which damaged her reputation. The court had to determine whether Firestone was a "public figure" or not, as this would affect the level of proof required for her claim; public figures must prove actual malice (knowing falsehood or reckless disregard for truth) while private individuals only need to show negligence on part of the publisher. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Ms.Firestone stating that she was not a public figure just because she was involved in high-profile litigation - specifically referring to her divorce proceedings from Russell A.Firestone Jr., heir to the tire manufacturing fortune.The majority opinion held that even though some aspects of one's life may be 'newsworthy', it does not automatically make them a public figure under defamation law standards.This ruling set important precedent regarding who is considered a 'public figure' within First Amendment jurisprudence and clarified legal protections available against defamatory publications.

In the dissenting opinion for Time, Inc. v. Firestone, 1975, Justice William Brennan argued that the majority's decision to not apply the "actual malice" standard was incorrect and inconsistent with previous rulings of defamation cases involving private individuals who are involuntarily thrust into public controversies. He contended that Mary Alice Firestone did not cease being a private figure simply because she sought a divorce in court or because her divorce proceedings attracted media attention due to their wealth and social status. According to him, this ruling could potentially expose any individual involved in newsworthy litigation to defamatory falsehoods without First Amendment protection unless they can prove actual malice by news publishers - an often impossible task for plaintiffs. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's narrow interpretation of what constitutes a 'public controversy', arguing it should include events like high-profile divorces which generate significant public interest.