Today, as we read and write this, some reporter and editor are reviewing a political advertisement the ad department has been asked to run by a local citizens group. This paid ad contains an important story. It's a story that could have immediate implications for readers. It's a story that includes serious accusations that a government official is acting in a way that could prove to be very damaging to citizens. Based on everything they've ever been told by anyone, the reporter and editor firmly believe every element of the story. There is nothing in what they have collected that raises any questions about the story. In an abundance of caution, they ask the legal department to review the ad. The legal department, giving a perfect application of New York Times vs. Sullivan, gives them the green light to publish.

The government official who is implicated in the ad brings suit. At trial, he raises the outlandish argument that New York Times vs. Sullivan should not control. Instead, he argues, the newspaper (yes, the newspaper -- Sullivan itself is an "ad" case, remember) should be liable for negligence. They should not be protected by the rule that only punishes them for publishing what they actually don't believe about a public official. They should have to pay if reasonable journalistic efforts would have uncovered a contrary story.

This argument comes as quite a surprise to everyone else in the courtroom, not least to the reporter and editor, who were told, back when this thing was happening in the real world, that NYT/Sullivan protected them.

The trial judge and all the intermediate appellate courts scoff at the argument, and rule in favor of the newspaper.

The Supreme Court of the United States, however, in a landmark opinion by Justice Scalia, overrules NYT/Sullivan and sends the case back for a new trial.

At the new trial, the aggrieved public official gets a paid journalism professor from Local U to take the stand. He's got a tweed jacket and gray hair and half-moon glasses and a list of credentials as long as your arm, but he hasn't actually worked as a journalist in 3 decades. He testifies that a reasonable journalist would not have accepted this ad without waiting two weeks for blood tests or some such thing to come back. Every real journalist in the room laughs all night long at that whopper, but the jury eats it up, and renders a $1 million verdict against the newspaper.

That's what you're talking about when you talk about overruling NYT vs. Sullivan.

That's what you're talking about when you propose overruling any long-settled precent.