Here’s Mickey Kaus: “Andrew Sullivan’s attempt to browbeat American publications into republishing those Mohammed cartoons seems close to unhinged.” Here’s Sullivan’s description of Kaus’s post: “My most devoted reader, Mickey Kaus, calls my defense of freedom of speech, including the right to offend others’ religions, ‘close to unhinged.’” I’m closer to Sullivan on the question in dispute–but does anyone think he’s accurately characterizing it?

Sullivan’s reading of Kaus is no more accurate than his reading of emails, or of Vatican documents, or Amy Welborn. Since Sullivan has issued no corrections or retractions in those cases, perhaps the better word than “accurate” would be “trustworthy.”