CASS SUNSTEIN WRITES ON the dark side of New York Times v. Sullivan. But this passage rankles:

In light of the court’s ruling, critics usually do not have to worry about getting ensnared in an expensive libel suit if their target is a public official (a category that the court eventually broadened to “public figures,” including entertainers and athletes). Even if you’re negligent — that is, you should have known what you’re saying was untrue and defamatory — you are likely to be protected.

When it comes to public figures, all sorts of false allegations are permissible, whether they involve birth certificates, drug abuse, sexual misconduct or income tax fraud. One result is that those who seek public office put their reputation at immediate risk.

One of the goals of the court’s ruling was to protect self-government, but the effects on self-government are not all good. Talk show hosts, bloggers and users of social media can spread ugly falsehoods in an instant — exposing citizens to lies that may well cause them to look on their leaders with unjustified suspicion.

Really? “talk show hosts, bloggers, and users of social media?” In your place, peasants! In truth, New York Times v. Sullivan does the most to protect deep-pocketed defendants, who have something to lose. Would the New York Times have run its bogus pre-election hit piece on John McCain if pre-Sullivan law applied? Would the Washington Post have felt free to make baseless charges against the Koch Brothers pre-Sullivan?

Based on recent evidence, I’d say that it’s hard to look upon our leaders with unjustified suspicion. And that most emphatically includes our leaders in the press.