I'm guessing that you mean that Eugene Volokh is listed as a weblogger first, and only parenthetically noted as a UCLA law professor.

I'm guessing that it's the Washington Post's use of the phrase "Second Amendment rights" to describe Mr. Heston's ability to own a gun.

How about someone at the Washington Post acknowledging that an individual HAS Second Amendment rights?!

Boy, you guys are quick! Yeah, it's the Second Amendment item.

I'm surprised that the phrase "Second Amendment Rights" wasn't removed from the article. Maybe they'll post a retraction later :-)

The lede is that Slate remembers who clicked on the original article. Did we know that?

Let's not jump to conclusions. Perhaps the lead is that someone at the Post thinks Charlton Heston is a state government.

I'm gonna say there are TWO ledes:

1. The Post is a born-again Second Amendment supporter.

2. Slate/Weisberg doesn't think that when the thrust of an entire article is wrong, and that on top of that, it incorrectly strips a man of a constitutional right, that it is a "big mistake". What kind of mistake would it take to print a REAL, front-page correction?

Oh yeah... monkey fishing not being real.

I guessed (wrongly) the "involuntary hospitalization" thing, but -- meaning no disrespect -- I found the following items, quoted verbatim from the column, rather eye-opening as well, especially taken together:

1. On the MediaNews Web site, retired newspaperman Paul Hutchinson wrote: "Both were adults, the sex was consensual. Adultery? Yes, but how does that become the Tribune's business? Applied universally, the [airwaves] would go dead tomorrow and the presses cease to roll."

2. Alex Jones, director of Harvard's Shorenstein press center, says Greene is a "family values" columnist and "there's a sanctimony about what he does that makes this particularly appalling" -- though Jones doubts he would have fired Greene "if she had been 21."

3. Now the Sun-Times has interviewed another woman who says she had an affair with Greene while in her early twenties, shortly before the publication of his 1984 book celebrating the joys of fatherhood.

4. ... a warning last month from Bob Deans of Cox Newspapers, president of the White House Correspondents Association: "Our pool reports . . . now provide the public with insights into who we are and how we do our jobs. A pool report written by any one of us, in other words, reflects in some way on all of us. We each take our work seriously, and none of us wants to signal otherwise through pool reports that can reach a global audience."

Well, yes, Jay: Howard Kurtz's column is chock-full of news! Especially today, I think.

Off topic a little: I'm disturbed to find that unless I click on an article I have already read (unlikely, don't you think?), I'll never have a chance to learn that it has been corrected.

CB: Well, this is a tough call. I tend to post corrections as updates to the original entry, on the theory that people who link to it will thus always come to the correction -- whereas if I post it separately they may never see the update. Of course, a magazine is different from a weblog.

I think how much time has passed and the seriousness of the error are all factors on a blog at least. If you post an update to a post that has fallen off the front page of your blog Glenn, I will never see it. So if enough time has passed a new post may be the best method. If the error is only very slight, or the "error" is really just a disagreement with your opinion then an "UPDATE:" and a link to the opposing viewpoint will suffice.

The problem is more complicated for an online magazine like Slate. I think the best policy would be to post an addendum in their original article and post a separate very small article indicating they made a correction to it. This would allow new visitors to the article to see the correction and allow people who have already seen the article who are therefore not likely to read it again to see that it has been corrected and they can stop sending threatening emails to the magazine.

I think the Washington Post could argue that when they wrote: "Turns out Heston wouldn't lose his Second Amendment rights without a court ruling that would likely require an involuntary hospitalization," they were just reporting what the correction was not that they advocated that position.

I don't know if the article was pulled, but I can't read it now.

Hey Guys, if you promote an untruth, you have an obligation to do whatever is reasonable and necessary to transmit corrective information to anyone you believe you may have misled. Simple, isn't it. How you do that matters less than the doing of it.
You guys all seem to be sea-lawyers, or maybe 'blog-lawyers', trying to work out the minimum you can do to avoid criticism. I'm disappointed; you know better.

No Breakfast:

Perhaps if you'd have something to eat your mood would improve. . . . But the goal isn't to do as little as possible. It has to do with the way links work. If I put up a post that has an error in it, and people link to it, and then I put up another post with a correction, the links will still lead to the uncorrected, erroneous post.

If I found a major error with a post that had scrolled off, I'd post a link to it from the front page and an update on it. In fact, I'm pretty sure I've done that more than once.

OK. Maybe I focused on the wrong bit. Thanks for the tip, too.

This seems like a pretty silly debate. Links are links because, well, they link to things. Why wouldn't you post the correction separately, and then link to the correction in the original post?

Just a thought.