In the case of Time, Inc. v. Hill in 1966, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a claim for damages under New York's privacy law could not be sustained unless there was proof that false information had been published with "actual malice" - meaning it was known to be false or was published with reckless disregard for its truth or falsity. The case arose when Life magazine (owned by Time, Inc.) inaccurately portrayed an ordeal experienced by James Hill and his family who were held hostage in their home by escaped convicts. The article suggested they had been treated well during this time which contradicted their actual experience of fear and trauma. When Mr.Hill sued for invasion of privacy, he initially won at state level but on appeal to the Supreme Court, it reversed the decision citing First Amendment protections against prior restraints on publication.

In the dissenting opinion for TIME, INC. v. HILL, Justice Black argued that the First Amendment's freedom of speech and press protections should extend to all publications unless they are proven false beyond a reasonable doubt and shown to have been published with high-level knowledge of their falsity or reckless disregard for truth. He disagreed with the majority's decision which allowed public figures to sue media outlets if they could prove that falsehoods were published about them negligently, even without malice or intent to harm reputation. In his view, this ruling would unduly restrict journalistic freedoms by creating fear of legal repercussions among publishers who might inadvertently publish inaccuracies despite good faith efforts at fact-checking. This could lead to self-censorship in order not risk potential lawsuits - an outcome he believed was contrary to the spirit and purpose of First Amendment rights.