The Volokh Conspiracy

An excerpt from his post:

So does [the item in the student newspaper] paint Islam in a nice light? No. Is it one-sided? Yes, but that was kind of the point. The students were responding to what they thought was a one-sided and overly rosy depiction of Islam during Islamic Awareness week. But is it unprotected harassment!? One certainly hopes not, or else “harassment” just became a truly lethal threat to free speech -- an “exception” that completely swallows the rule....

If what the complaining students wanted to say was that the [newspaper's] facts were wrong, then -- while this still would not be harassment -- that could have been an interesting debate. But instead, in sadly predictable fashion, the students plowed ahead with a harassment claim that, based on the hearing panel’s decision, appeared not even to raise the issue of whether or not the statements in the ad were true, but turned only on how they made people feel.

To be fair, I take it the students' claim was that the collection of facts was one-sided and unfair -- but surely giving universities the power to punish students for newspaper articles that are seen by some as one-sided and unfair is a power that's lethal to freedom of discussion.

Lukianoff goes on:

I doubt that the Tufts disciplinary board thought through the full ramifications of their actions. If a Muslim student had published these same statements in an article calling for reform in Islam, would that be harassment? If Tufts wished to be at all consistent (a dubious bet here), it would be.

Since those students and faculty obviously did not think about the ramifications of this decision, we put it to you, President Bacow: do you think the publication of factual assertions should be a punishable offense if they hurt the wrong people’s feelings, regardless of whether or not they are true?

Someone pointed me to this letter in which the Pomona City Attorney seems to be threatening the Foothill Cities weblog with a libel lawsuit:

[T]his letter will serve as notice and demand to you ... to cease and desist any further publication of false information concerning the City of Pomona, the City Council of the City of Pomona, the City Manager and/or any of the City's employees and that you delete and retract all such communications that have appeared on your web-site concerning this matter during the month of April 2007 to the present.

(LA Observed has more on this.)

I can't speak to whether any of the blog posts did indeed libel City employees or officials. But I can say that the City Attorney has no legal basis for demanding (as opposed to requesting, by appeals to a sense of fairness or journalistic standards) that the blog stop publishing false information about the City -- under New York Times v. Sullivan (1964), there can be no lawsuit for libeling a government entity.

The NYT v. Sullivan Court stated that "no court of last resort in this country has ever held, or even suggested, that prosecutions for libel on government have any place in the American system of jurisprudence," and it endorsed this tradition as being constitutionally mandated. So while I certainly think it's wrong to make knowingly or recklessly false statements about government entities, and while it may be libelous to make such statements about particular city employees or officials, it cannot be libelous even to say outright lies about the City of Pomona more broadly.

Apropos the Tufts University's prohibition on blasphemy, the Tufts Daily has this quote:

The [Muslim Student Association] joined the case after the publication of an April 11 item in the Source saying that Islam is a violent religion. "We have to take it seriously," said junior Shirwac Mohamed, the MSA co-chair who will represent the organization at today's hearing. He said that many Muslim students, even those not normally active in MSA, have complained about the item.

"I looked at the article and was flabbergasted," he said. "It's intentionally putting a negative spin on Islam."

My first reaction was — welcome to America: We're allowed to intentionally put a negative spin on religion here, just as we're allowed to criticize any other ideology. There should be nothing flabbergasting about open debate in America, debate which doesn't assume that any religious belief is sacrosanct.

But I guess the joke is on me, because welcome to Tufts: A university panel (consisting mostly of faculty members) has concluded that in fact Tufts does not allow "attitudes or opinions that are expressed verbally or in writing" that create a "hostile environment" through "unreasonable attacks based on [students'] religion." Or at least that's so when, in the commitee members' views, the criticisms of religion somehow manage to avoid "promoting political or social discourse"; somehow "putting a negative spin of Islam," which I would have thought is a form of political or social discourse, doesn't actually promote such discourse.

So, my apologies, Mr. Mohamed: You're right to be flabbergasted when people "intentionally put[] a negative spin of Islam," when you're in Tufts' No Unreasonable Anti-Religious Attitudes Or Opinions Zone.

Last month, a Tufts student newspaper (The Primary Source) published the following ad (thanks to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education for the pointer):

ISLAM
ARABIC TRANSLATION: SUBMISSION

In the spirit of Islamic Awareness week, the Source presents an itinerary to supplement the educational experience.

"I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them." — The Koran, Sura 8:12 MONDAY Author Salam Rushdie needed to go into hiding after Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini declared a fatwa calling for his death for writing The Satanic Verses, which was declared "blasphemous against Islam."

Slavery was an integral part of Islamic culture. Since the 7th century, 14 million African slaves were sold to Muslims compared to 10 or 11 million sold to the entire Western Hemisphere. As recently as 1878, 25,000 slaves were sold annually in Mecca and Medina. (National Review 2002). TUESDAY The seven nations in the world that punish homosexuality with death all have fundamentalist Muslim governments.

In Saudi Arabia, women make up 5% of the workforce, the smallest percentage of any nation worldwide. They are not allowed to operate a motor vehicle or go outside without proper covering of their body. (Country Reports on Human Rights pracitces 2001) WEDNESDAY Most historians agree that Muhammed's second wife Aisha was 9 years old when their marriage was consummated.

"Not equal are those believers who sit and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit. Unto all Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit by a special reward." — The Koran, Sura 4:95 THURSDAY The Islamist guerillas in Iraq are not only killing American soldiers fighting for freedom. They are also responsible for the vast majority of civi[l]ian casualties.

Ibn Al-Ghazzali, the famous Islamic theologian, said, "The most satisfying and final word on the matter is that marriage is a form of slavery. The woman is man's slave and her duty therefore is absolute obedience to the husband in all that he asks of her person." FRIDAY Mohamed Hadfi, 31, tore out his 23-year-old wife Samira Bari's eyes in their apartment in the southern French city of Nimes in July 2003 following a heated argument about her refusal to have sex with him. (Herald Sun)

If you are a peaceful Muslim who can explain or justify this astonishingly intolerant
and inhuman behavior, we'd really like to hear from you! Please send all letters to
tuftsprimarysource@gmail.com.

Yet according to the a decision by the Tufts University Committee on Student Life both these items violate Tufts policies and are thus forbidden at Tufts. Tufts policies prohibit, among other things, "[h]arassment or discrimination against individuals on the basis of race, religion, gender identity/expression, ethnic or national origin, gender, sexual orientation, disability, age, or genetics", including (emphasis added) "attitudes or opinions that are expressed verbally or in writing." Here's what the University Committee — a majority of which apparently consists of faculty members — had to say about the anti-Islam item (in the interests of saving space, I omit the similar findings about the anti-affirmative-action carol) (emphasis added):

[W]e find that the MSA proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that The Primary Source harassed Muslim students at Tufts, and created a hostile environment for them by publishing “Islam-Arabic Translation: Submission.” The Committee found that the MSA established that the commentary at issue targeted members of the Tufts Muslim community for harassment and embarrassment, and that Muslim students felt psychologically intimidated by the piece....

[A]lthough Tufts students should feel free to engage in speech that others might find offensive and even hurtful, Tufts University’s non-discrimination policy embodies important community standards of behavior that Tufts, as a private institution, has an obligation to uphold. Our campus should be a place where students feel safe, respected, and valued. Freedom of speech should not be an unfettered license to violate the rights of other members of the community, without recourse.

We find that the above-mentioned carol and commentary, rather than promoting political or social discourse, as claimed by the members of The Primary Source, instead were designed to harass and intimidate members of the Tufts community because of their race (black) and religion (Islam)....

[T]he Committee has attempted to strike a balance between protecting the rights of students to exist on campus without being subjected to unreasonable attacks based on their race or religion and protecting the rights of students to publish controversial writings....

From now on, all material published in The Primary Source (whether characterized as satirical or otherwise) must be attributed to named author(s) or contributor(s).

We ask that student governance consider the behavior of student groups in future decisions concerning recognition and funding....

The Committee believes that it is important for Tufts University to foster an intellectual climate in which students feel free to express their thoughts, however controversial. Nevertheless, based on the evidence and arguments presented at the hearing on April 30, 2007, the Committee on Student Life holds that The Primary Source violated Tufts University’s non-discrimination policy in publishing the carol “O Come All Ye Black Folk” and the commentary “Islam-Arabic Translation: Submission.”

What's more, this "unreasonable" speech violates the "rights of other members of the community." What are those rights? Apparently the right "to exist on campus without being subjected to unreasonable attacks based on their race or religion" (including attacks on the religion generally, even those that don't give any student names in particular). And apparently the right to be free of "attitudes or opinions that are expressed verbally or in writing" that "create[] a hostile environment" for students "on the basis of race, religion, gender identity/expression, ethnic or national origin, gender, sexual orientation, disability, age, or genetics."

In this case, the punishment for the speech is a ban on one newspaper's ability to publish anonymous speech — while other newspapers that express favored views remain free to shield their contributors from social ostracism and other retaliation through anonymity. It requests "that student governance consider the behavior of student groups," which is to say the viewpoints those groups express, "in future decisions concerning recognition and funding."

But more importantly, the ruling finds that the speech violated general campus rules that make such speech "unacceptable at Tufts" and require "prompt and decisive action." Though it looks like no individual students are being disciplined in this instance, if the Tufts Administration accepts the ruling, it will send a clear message that students who express "attitudes or opinions" like this will be seen as violating campus anti-harassment rules, and will be subjected to "prompt and decisive action," which campus rules say may involve "the disciplinary process," against individual students as well as against organizations. After this decision, what should Tufts students feel free to say in criticizing religions, or in criticizing affirmative action?

Welcome to the new freedom of speech at the new university. No, the Committee's actions don't violate the First Amendment, since Tufts is a private university. But they violate basic principles of academic freedom and public debate on university campuses, especially when the top university administrators claim to "fully recognize freedom of speech on campus." Appalling.

The Baltimore Sun reports:

A large billboard advertising local air times for the conservative radio talk-show host has been defaced.

Robert Murrow, a spokesman for the city's Department of Public Works, saw the vandalism as he drove to work this morning on I-83 near the Guilford Avenue exit. He called The Sun, saying that someone had poured paint on the image of Limbaugh's face....

"It looks like they took globs of paint and threw it on his face. It looks great. It did my heart good," said Murrow, who admittedly is not a Limbaugh fan.

Kurt L. Kocher, chief spokesman for the city's Department of Public Works and Murrow's supervisor, took issue with Murrow's statement.

"As much as you don't like Rush Limbaugh, you don't endorse vandalism, period," Kocher said. "It's an outrageous comment, and he shouldn't have said it. It is not our policy. I think he got overenthusiastic about his feelings for Mr. Limbaugh. I am very upset about that comment, and I've let him know I'm very upset about that comment. It's his personal comment and it's wrong. It does not belong out there in any kind of official capacity. As far as I'm concerned, he was not speaking for the department."

I'm with Mr. Kocher on this one.

Thanks to NewsBusters for the pointer.

his new ad touts. Wow, that's quite an honor! Uh, except all it takes to get that status is to four times get nominations from any "professor[] of social sciences, history, philosophy, law [or] theology" or any judge or national legislator in any country. That includes, for instance, me. I could nominate you for the Nobel Peace Prize four times, and then you could say in your commercials that you've been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize four times.

To be fair, this is one small item in the commercial, and Richardson may well deserve recognition as a peacemaker on the merits; I'm speaking here only of the one tidbit about which I have something relevant to say. But it seems to me that this particular "credential" doesn't belong in the ad: If I'm right that the credential is likely to be impressive only to people who don't know how easy it is to get, then it's more misleading than informative.

Thanks to fellow lawprof — and fellow potential Nobel Peace Prize nominator — Steve Lubet for passing along the video (though I have no idea whether this is what he had in mind when passing it along).

A recent discussion I had prompted me to revisit this topic (which I last discussed on-blog five years ago). There are lots of interesting, plausible arguments in the gun control debates — and some that seem appealing but on close viewing prove to be just plain unsound.

One of the latter kind is "Why not regulate guns like cars?" The implicit argument here is "Why not require licenses, registration, tests, and so on for gun possession?" See, for instance, Chicago's Million Moms March on Mother's Day, PR Newswire, Apr. 27, 2000, quoting Million March organizer Donna Dees-Thomases as saying "We want Congress to create a meaningful gun policy in this country that treats guns like cars"; Partnership for Prevention's New Report to Congress Recommends Gun Owner Licensing and Gun Registration, U.S. Newswire, Mar. 24, 2000, quoting Handgun Control, Inc. president Michael Barnes as saying "For years now, we have been calling on Congress to treat guns like cars by a system of licensing and registration."

This argument is odd because cars are basically regulated as follows (I rely below on California law, but to my knowledge the rules are similar throughout the country):

(1) No federal licensing or registration.

(2) Any person may use a car on his own private property without any license or registration. See, e.g., California Vehicle Code §§ 360, 12500 (driver's license required for driving on "highways," defined as places that are "publicly maintained and open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel"); California Vehicle Code § 4000 (same as to registration).

(3) Any adult may get a license to use a car in public places by passing a fairly simple test that virtually everyone can pass.

This is pretty much how many gun rights advocates would like to see guns regulated, and is in fact pretty close to the dominant model in the 40 states that now allow pretty much any law-abiding adult to get a license to carry a concealed weapon: No need to register or get a license to have a gun at home, and a simple, routine test through which any law-abiding citizen can get a state license to carry a gun in public.

Gun control advocates would in reality prefer a much more onerous system of regulations for guns than for cars. Of course, one can certainly argue that guns should be regulated more heavily than cars; thoughtful gun control advocates do indeed do this. But then one should candidly admit that one is demanding specially burdensome regulation for guns — and not claim to be "merely asking that guns be regulated like cars."

Incidentally, I don't claim any great originality on these points: Others have made them before me, see, e.g., David Kopel's Taking It to the Streets, Reason, Nov. 1999. But some things are worth repeating.

Giuliani's Web site reports:

Rudy Giuliani is a strong supporter of the Second Amendment. When he was Mayor of a city suffering an average of almost 2000 murders a year, he protected people by getting illegal handguns out of the hands of criminals. As a result, shootings fell by 72% and the murder rate was cut by two-thirds. But Rudy understands that what works in New York doesn’t necessarily work in Mississippi or Montana.

Naturally, I'm pleased that Giuliani at least expresses strong support of the Second Amendment (though I hope this isn't "the Second Amendment only protects the rights of states, and I strongly support that"). I also prefer "getting illegal handguns out of the hands of criminals" — assuming this means people with a preexisting criminal record rather than just people who are criminals because we've banned their guns — rather than "keeping guns out of our inner cities" (which on its face speaks of all guns, illegal or not, and inner cities generally, not criminals' possession in particular). [UPDATE: Note this endorsement on the Giuliani site from Rep. Candace Miller: "For example, on the issue of crime, let me use this example, the Mayor is a very strong supporter of the second amendment as I am, and one of the things that those of us who believe in the second amendment, we always say, is look we don’t need any more new gun laws, what we need to do is just enforce the laws that are currently on the books that exist."]

Still, I'd love to hear some more details from the Giuliani camp. Among other things, note the disconnect between the second and third sentences in the official position statement and the last sentence: I'd think that getting illegal handguns out of the hands of criminals would be good even in Mississippi or Montana — in my experience, proposal for different treatment of guns in big cities vs. the countryside has generally had to do with restricting what law-abiding city residents may do. Can anyone point me to more specific discussions of Giuliani's platform on guns (or for that matter Obama's or the other candidates')?

The Cincinnati Enquirer reports:

Jeff Ruby isn’t a big O.J. Simpson fan.

The Cincinnati restaurateur made that clear last week when he asked Simpson to leave his steakhouse in Louisville because the former football great and murder defendant makes him “sick to my stomach.”

But does disliking a guy give Ruby the legal right to deny him a steak?

Civil rights lawyers say it does.

“It’s his business,” said Cincinnati lawyer Lou Sirkin. “He’s got the right to do that.”

Indeed.

The newspaper further reports, "Simpson’s lawyer has said he might pursue legal action and accused Ruby of excluding Simpson on the basis of his race." Indeed: If Ruby has been serving notorious white killers, but rejected O.J. because he's black, that's illegal. But somehow I doubt that this is what was happening.

Good work, Mr. Ruby.

Thanks to Ethan Hahn for the pointer.

So I checked out Barack Obama's campaign site to see what he says about guns there. There's no formal position paper that I could find, but there is a speech that says this:

I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities, and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manufacturers' lobby -- but I also believe that when a gang-banger shoots indiscriminately into a crowd because he feels somebody disrespected him, we've got a moral problem. There's a hole in that young man's heart -- a hole that the government alone cannot fix.

Any thoughts on what exactly "I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities" might mean?

Just wanted to highlight a fact I discuss in more detail in the post below: Sen. Barack Obama's stand on guns is apparently to support a ban on sales and transfers of all semi-automatic weapons.

For those not up on the details, note that this is far broader than the existing bans on fully automatics, or the bans on so-called "assault weapons." Most modern handguns (such as my own Glock 17) are semi-automatic, as are many rifles (such as my Ruger 10/22) and quite a few shotguns. And while the ban would still allow sales of revolvers, bolt-action rifles, pump-action shotguns (such as my Mossberg), and similar guns, there's good reason to think that a broad ban on semi-automatics would lead to still broader bans.

I routinely hear this argument -- no need to worry about the slippery slope, or about this or that Presidential candidate, or whether the Second Amendment is read as protecting the right to bear arms. Given how much Americans love guns, only a paranoid would worry about guns being banned. The only things that are really on the table, or likely to get on the table, are some modest regulations. A few thoughts in response.

1. Calls for total bans on handguns or all guns: It doesn't take a paranoid, it seems to me, to worry about gun bans when many leading politicians, news outlets, and other institutions have called for such bans. See here for a list (which is not intended to be complete). Recall also that one American jurisdiction (D.C.) does make it illegal for you to keep any gun ready for self-defense, even in your own home. (The D.C. Circuit decision striking down that ban on Second Amendment grounds hasn't yet taken effect.) Chicago and some neighboring cities ban handguns; New York, I'm told, makes handguns quite hard to get.

2. Worrying about fellow citizens' rights: It's true that the overwhelming majority of gun owners, and of gun rights supporters, live in jurisdictions in which it's unlikely that gun bans or handgun bans will be enacted any time soon. But so what? California abortion rights supporters worry about Louisiana women's access to abortions, not just about their own. You wouldn't tell them, "look, you live in California, why do you care about constitutional protection about abortion rights," because people who see something as a basic human right tend to worry about their fellow citizens' access to that right, and not just about their own. Why then assume that American gun rights supporters are purely in it for their own self-interest?

3. Looking down the road at possible future proposals: Gun rights supporters, like abortion rights supporters, free speech supporters, and supporters of other rights, also sensibly try to think ahead, not just to next year but also some decades down the line.

Take, for instance, bans on semiautomatic weapons (not fully automatic weapons or even so-called "assault weapons," but all semiautomatic weapons). Barack Obama is on the record as endorsing a total ban on "the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons." Now this would cover the majority of all handguns now being manufactured, as well as many rifles and quite a few shotguns. But I acknowledge that by itself it won't dramatically restrict people's ability to defend themselves, because revolvers (for handguns), bolt-action rifles, and pump-action shotguns would still be legal, and would be pretty much as effective for self-defense as semiautomatics.

Yet what would happen after this ban is enacted? To the extent the ban would have any effect on criminals, it would lead them to shift to revolvers, bolt-action rifles, and pump-action shotguns. Crime using those kinds of weapons would thus go up.

What do you expect a President Obama and others who take his view to do? Just say "Well, we were for a ban of semi-automatic weapons, and that's all we were for; though now more gun crime is being committed with non-semi-automatic weapons, we're not going to touch them"? Or would it be likelier that they'll start talking about "closing the revolver loophole," or banning "assault revolvers," or dealing with the "skyrocketing revolver crime rate"?

It doesn't take a paranoid to assume that the pro-gun-control forces would take the latter course -- and might succeed in that course, at least in many jurisdictions. It may take some years for that to happen. But people who care strongly about what they see as an important right want to preserve it not just for now, but for decades to come, not just for themselves, but also for their children.

So I wouldn't condemn those who worry about broad gun bans as paranoid, just as I wouldn't condemn those who worry about broad abortion bans as paranoid. When lots of people keep talking about banning guns, when some cities have banned handguns, and one has banned possession of any guns in a state in which they can be immediately used for self-defense, and when a leading Presidential candidate is on the record as supporting a ban on all semiautomatic guns, being worried about gun bans -- not for the whole country today, but for some of your fellow citizens today, and perhaps for many more in a few decades -- is perfectly reasonable.

Thanks to Cory Hojka for the pointer to Obama's opinion on semi-automatic weapons.

The Washington Post reports:

[Mitt Romney] also criticized people who choose not to get married because they enjoy the single life.

"It seems that Europe leads Americans in this way of thinking," Romney told the crowd of more than 5,000. "In France, for instance, I'm told that marriage is now frequently contracted in seven-year terms where either party may move on when their term is up. How shallow and how different from the Europe of the past."

If this quote is accurate and in context, then it does seem more than just a screw-up caused by being tired -- Romney went out of his way to say this, and must have had at least some opportunity to reflect on it and to realize that it bears a little more checking. So it seems to me this reflects worse on him than the 10,000-death-toll (an error in one number, and one that was apparently fairly promptly corrected) misstatement by Obama.

See also the Orson Scott Card connection, courtesy of Ana Marie Cox (Swampland @ Time).

Pena v. State (Tex. Ct. App. May 2), holds that the Texas Constitution provides defendants with more rights to relief than the U.S. Constitution in cases where the prosecution had inadvertently destroyed evidence. Here are a few sentences from the opening two paragraphs of Chief Justice Gray's dissenting opinion (some citations omitted):

“As a dog returns to its vomit, so a fool repeats his folly.” Proverbs 26:11. As the majority did in 2005, the majority again reverses Pena’s conviction, and holds that the trial court erred in overruling Pena’s objections to the testimony of Texas Department of Public Safety criminologist Charles Mott and related evidence without giving a jury instruction unknown to Texas law.... Pena’s brief on remand adds nothing, but merely regurgitates the majority’s analysis in Pena I....

The majority’s opinion glosses over two properly dispositive parts of the analysis, namely preservation of error and harm, in less than a page each, in order to publish its thirty-six page, mediocre law-review article on the merits of Pena’s issues under the Texas Constitution....

The majority responds, in footnote 27: "In reading the dissenting opinion’s selection from the Scriptures, we are reminded of the recent observation of the Court of Criminal Appeals: 'First, the statement is unnecessary; it contributes nothing to the legal issue before us. Second, and most importantly, it is highly unprofessional. When a judge chastises other members of the judiciary in this manner, it not only reflects poorly on the judge, it undermines the integrity of the justice system. The words of Supreme Court Justice Kennedy are particularly appropriate here: 'The collegiality of the judiciary can be destroyed if we adopt the habits and mannerisms of modern, fractious discourse. Neither in public nor in private must we show disrespect for our fellow judges. Whatever our failings, we embody the law and its authority. Disrespect for the person leads to disrespect for the cause.' If public respect for the judiciary is to be maintained, it must begin from within.'"

What's going on there in Waco?

The AP reports:

Barack Obama, caught up in the fervor of a campaign speech Tuesday, drastically overstated the Kansas tornadoes death toll, saying 10,000 had died. The death toll was 12.

“In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died — an entire town destroyed,” the Democratic presidential candidate said in a speech to 500 people packed into a sweltering Richmond art studio for a fundraiser....

As he concluded his remarks a few minutes later, he appeared to realize his gaffe.

“There are going to be times when I get tired,” he said. “There are going to be times when I get weary. There are going to be times when I make mistakes.”

Obama spokesman Bill Burton said later that the senator meant to say “at least 10,” instead of 10,000....

This doesn't seem to me like a simple slip of the tongue, as when you mean to say one thing but accidentally say another (e.g., "at most 10" instead of "at least 10"). The "thousand" must have been deliberate at the time, though surely not thought through — a ten-thousand-death natural disaster would, to my knowledge, be unprecedented in recent American history; if one thought about it even for a moment, one would realize that the number must be wrong.

But the tiredness explanation nonetheless strikes me as perfectly reasonable. Campaigning for President is, by all accounts, an immensely tiring task — basically nonstop work morning to night, traveling, constantly talking, making political decisions, worrying. I suspect nearly all of us, laboring under that kind of schedule, would make errors of one sort or another in what we say. Just think about the slip-ups you sometimes make after any long spell of intense work. Seems to me we ought to cut the man (and all his fellow candidates) some slack on this score.

For a different view, see Don Surber. Thanks to InstaPundit for the pointer.

UPDATE: OK, this is just zany. I post (1) defending Obama against charges that he made some telling gaffe, and (2) trying to use this one incident to urge more broadly that everyone cut people more slack on slip-ups they make in the middle of an extremely hectic schedule. I do so after others, both in the mainstream media and in blogs, note the story, and after some use the story as an argument against Obama. (Just check out the links that I give and you'll see.)

But I guess you can't please some people: "Why would you possibly post on this?" "Complete non-event .... Will we see more of this sort of thing from Prof. Volokh as the election approaches?" "the media vultures who want to make stories out trivial events I agree. Too bad this website joins the flock." Apparently even noting that there is this criticism of Obama out there and defending him against the criticism is somehow beyond the pale.

It's going to be a long, unpleasant election season.