In the case of United States v. Baltimore Post, 1924, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the government's right to censor wartime press coverage under certain circumstances. The Baltimore Post had published a photograph and article about a new military invention during World War I without obtaining prior approval from the Secretary of War or his designated representative as required by law at that time. The newspaper was subsequently charged with violating this law but argued that it violated their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and press. The court disagreed with this argument, stating that while these freedoms are important, they are not absolute especially during times when national security could be compromised such as war periods. They held that Congress has broad powers to enact laws necessary for national defense including regulating information dissemination related to military operations or inventions which might aid enemy forces if disclosed prematurely. This ruling thus upheld the conviction against Baltimore Post reinforcing government's authority over media publications concerning sensitive military matters during wartime situations even though it may seem like an infringement on free speech and press rights.

The dissenting opinion in the United States v. Baltimore Post case argued that the First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and press should not be limited by a law prohibiting false advertising. The justice believed that while false advertisements could potentially harm consumers, it was more important to uphold constitutional freedoms than to protect individuals from possible deception or fraud. He contended that if Congress had intended for such restrictions on free speech, they would have explicitly stated so in the Constitution. Furthermore, he suggested that any regulation of advertising should fall under state jurisdiction rather than federal control as it pertains more directly to local commerce and consumer protection issues.