implicit in Lithwick's piece is the notion that NY Times v. Sullivan is a liberal decision that liberals should circle the wagons around, lest the new conversative majority seek its reversal.

But I don't know if liberals should be too defensive about that case. Even if one agrees with its basic premise in principle (which is at least subject to debate), I think the practical affect of Sullivan has been to encourage the likes of Rush Limbaugh and generally turn the media into a hysterical pack of gossipy wolves.

If conversatives succeed in reversing Sullivan, the result may be more civility in the media, which would probably help the ideology that is most robust when confronted with calm, intelligent argument. In my opinion, conservatism would be the loser in that new media world.

Reversal would be good for trial lawyers. It would spawn a robust libel and slander practice akin to that in the U.K.

The problem with Sullivan is that it provides an incentive for sloppy reporting. As in the Sullivan case itself, real damage to people can be done through sloppy reporting even if no malice was intended. The standard should be changed to require due diligence prior to publication. Of course, anybody with a sense of professionalism will be doing this already.

It's time for NY Times v. Sullivan to be re-visited. Sullivan encourages the kind of reporting we got in the Valerie Plame episode, and guarantees that the public gets only the part of the story that anonymous leakers want to get out, while reserving the (often more important) information about the motivations and infighting that led to a story being leaked in the first place. We would be better served by a rule that retains Sullivan protection only for cases where the identity of sources is published, leaving news organizations to publish anonymous claims at their own risk.

I find Scalia's openness about overturning precedents he doesn't like refreshing compared to the Chief Justice's pretense that he is just limiting precedents that he is really gutting.