Eric Asimov in his New York Times column, The Pour, started it this time around. John Hansell voiced his approval and I offered my contrary view. Since then, also predictably, Kevin Erskine has weighed in on the side of the status quo.
If you go back and read my post last week about this, be sure to read the comments. Davin de Kergommeaux points out that spelling whiskey according to where the whiskey is made makes about as much sense as spelling and distinguishing between "tires" and "tyres" also based on country of origin.
The main justification for the traditional approach is that it is the traditional approach and a matter of respect. The main argument in favor of change is that the traditional approach leads inevitably to the mistaken belief that "whisky" and "whiskey" are actually two different words with two different meanings. Where snobbery comes in is that almost everyone who erroneously maintains that they are two different words is a scotch snob.