Currently viewing the tag: "published"

Written by Julián Ortega Martínez

Last week, the Office of the Inspector General, through Ilva Myriam Hoyos, Delegate Inspector for the Defence of the Rights of Children, Adolescents, and Family, announced [es] it had requested the Attorney General's Office and the Colombian Institute for Family Welfare (ICBF, for its initials in Spanish) to open an investigation into one of the articles published in the latest edition of the adult magazine SoHo. Ms Hoyos based her request citing the Code of Childhood and Adolescence [es], and the Penal Code [es]. Both Ms Hoyos and Inspector General Alejandro Ordóñez are known for their conservative positions, and SoHo had been involved in a similar controversy in 2005.

The article, titled “Dejad que los niños vengan a mí” [es] (”Let the children come to me,” referencing Mark 10:14. WARNING: explicit images), includes photos from an exhibition [es] by photographer Mauricio Vélez (a regular contributor to the magazine), opened until mid-April at a hotel in Medellín. The controversial pictures depict staged scenes of nude underage boys (or models pretending to be minors) being watched by actors dressed as Catholic priests.

According [es] to the magazine's editor-in-chief, Daniel Samper Ospina, Vélez “clarified the minors [depicted] are 16 and 17″ and were photographed ‘with their parents' permission.” Samper told [es] Semana magazine (which owns SoHo) that “in Colombia we love to keep up appearances; therefore the State ends up persecuting the photographer who denounces pedophilia through his work, and not those who commit these abuses.”

The controversy erupted over the social networks. @cynosargo tweets:

Pfff, Daniel Samper Ospina se cree el Larry Flynt colombiano o qué? A otro perro con ése hueso.

Pfff, Daniel Samper Ospina thinks he's the Colombian Larry Flynt or what? I'm not biting on that one.

Jose L. Peñarredonda (@noalsilencio) argues that,

Lo que va a ser interesante entre la pelea entre Soho y el Procurador es que van a llevar a los tribunales el concepto de ‘arte'

The interesting thing about the fight between SoHo and the Inspector General will be the concept of ‘art' being carried to court.

Photographer Manuel Noguera Salas (@manuelnogueraS) supports the work by Vélez:

@DanielSamperO Un aplauso para Mauric[i]o Velez, La gente se escandaliza por la representación de la realidad? La verdad les duele!

@DanielSamperO Applause for Mauric[i]o Velez, do people get shocked with the representation of reality? Truth hurts!

But Lina Artunduaga (@LinaArtunduaga) disagrees:

Pues a mi las fotos de Vélez no me gustan! Son niños desnudos con un adulto y punto. Parecen más apología que denuncia…

Well, I don't like Vélez's photos! They're naked children with an adult, period. They seem more endorsement than denunciation…

With a similar point of view, María Prieto (@LaRola) tweets:

La publicación de las fotos de #soho no aportan nada al debate de la protección a los menores. Soho social e irreverente ya me sabe mierda.

The publication of the photos by #Soho makes no contribution to the debate about protecting minors. [The] social and irreverent Soho already tastes like shit to me.

Chilean cartoonist Alberto Montt (@albertomontt) tells SoHo's editor-in-chief:

Señor @DanielSamperO, si la gente reaccionase la mitad de indignada x los casos de abusos y pdflia q x las fotos, otro gallo cantaría.

Mr @DanielSamperO, if people reacted with half the outrage with cases of sexual abuse and pedophilia than they have with the photos, things would be quite different.

While Daniel Arango (@stultaviro) criticizes the magazine:

SoHo, revista erótica con prurito intelectual y aire sofisticado, que termina reducida a material masturbatorio de taller de mecánica.

SoHo, erotic magazine with intellectual obsession and sophisticated look, which ends up being reduced to masturbatory material for automobile repair shops.

Dan Gamboa Bohorquez (@larepuvlica) writes:

El contexto es tan importante como el contenido. El trabajo “Dejad que los niños vengan a mí” es muy bueno, pero SoHo no debió patrocinarlo

Context is as important as content. The work “Let the children come to me” is very good, but SoHo shouldn't have endorsed it.

Fernanda Contreras gives her opinion (@PardeGatos) in two tweets (1, 2):

Si alguien, a favor o en contra de Soho, abre diciendo 'sin moralismos', empezó mal. De eso se trata, de debatir sobre morales. En ese sentido, estar a favor de Soho no es ‘no ser moralista', sino argumentar en pro de una moral opuesta a la del Balbuceador.

If someone, for or against Soho, starts by saying ‘no intention to be a moralist', they are beginning the wrong way. That's all it is about: debating about morals. In that sense, to support or oppose Soho is not ‘being moralistic,' but arguing for a morality opposed to the Stammerer General's

Ana Maria Villamil C (@Mme_Bavarde) tells Samper:

@DanielSamperO Así es este país! Se indignan por unas fotos y por la muerte de una lechuza… pero les da igual si matan a una juez!

@DanielSamperO This is how this country is! They are outraged because of some pictures and the death of an owl… but they don't care if a judge is murdered!

Tiffany Aching (@AgnesCheshire) says that,

A los curas les queda fácil comerse niños porque la iglesia tiene muchas organizaciones y colegios. Y También trabajan con niños vulnerables

For Catholic priests, it's easy to have sex with children because the church has many organizations and schools. And they also work with vulnerable kids.

SoHo's editor-in-chief Daniel Samper Ospira (@DanielSamperO) tweeted (1, 2):

Los esfuerzos de las autoridades deberían ser contra la pedofilia, no contra el fotógrafo que la tomó como temática de trabajo y de denuncia[.] Las fotos no inducen a malos pensamientos con los niños, sino a sentir indignación ante el cura que les coquetea.

The authorities' efforts should [focus] against pedophilia, not against the photographer which used it as a subject for work and denunciation[.] The photos don't incite to [have] impure thoughts with the children, but to feeling outrage at the priest flirting with them.

On the local blogosphere, Jonathan from A la diestra [es] defends Ms Hoyos' request, while Carlos Forero harshly criticizes Samper and Vélez on Segunda Plana [es]:

Lo hecho por Vélez y Samper es asqueroso, usar a menores de edad desnudos en una exposición artística o en una revista para adultos es depravado, su supuesta iniciativa de denuncia se queda corta ante el hecho de la exhibición de los cuerpos de los niños.

What Vélez and Samper did is disgusting, using naked minors for an artistic exposition or an adult magazine is perverted, their alleged initiative of denunciation runs short before the fact of the exhibition of the children's bodies.

But David Osorio at De avanzada supports [es] Samper by republishing the controversial photos and attacking the Inspector General:

[E]n estos días el fanático, fundamentalista e intolerante Ordóñez ha vuelto a poner todas las armas que tiene a su alcance, lanza en ristre contra la revista SoHo, una vez más, por unas fotos que no son de su retorcido católico gusto y agrado.

In the last few days the fanatic, fundamentalist, and intolerant [Inspector General] Ordóñez has set up again all the weapons in his reach, attacking SoHo magazine, again, because of some photos which aren't of his twisted, catholic liking.

Global Voices in English

Tagged with:
 

Written by Julián Ortega Martínez

Last week, the Office of the Inspector General, through Ilva Myriam Hoyos, Delegate Inspector for the Defence of the Rights of Children, Adolescents, and Family, announced [es] it had requested the Attorney General's Office and the Colombian Institute for Family Welfare (ICBF, for its initials in Spanish) to open an investigation into one of the articles published in the latest edition of the adult magazine SoHo. Ms Hoyos based her request citing the Code of Childhood and Adolescence [es], and the Penal Code [es]. Both Ms Hoyos and Inspector General Alejandro Ordóñez are known for their conservative positions, and SoHo had been involved in a similar controversy in 2005.

The article, titled “Dejad que los niños vengan a mí” [es] (”Let the children come to me,” referencing Mark 10:14. WARNING: explicit images), includes photos from an exhibition [es] by photographer Mauricio Vélez (a regular contributor to the magazine), opened until mid-April at a hotel in Medellín. The controversial pictures depict staged scenes of nude underage boys (or models pretending to be minors) being watched by actors dressed as Catholic priests.

According [es] to the magazine's editor-in-chief, Daniel Samper Ospina, Vélez “clarified the minors [depicted] are 16 and 17″ and were photographed ‘with their parents' permission.” Samper told [es] Semana magazine (which owns SoHo) that “in Colombia we love to keep up appearances; therefore the State ends up persecuting the photographer who denounces pedophilia through his work, and not those who commit these abuses.”

The controversy erupted over the social networks. @cynosargo tweets:

Pfff, Daniel Samper Ospina se cree el Larry Flynt colombiano o qué? A otro perro con ése hueso.

Pfff, Daniel Samper Ospina thinks he's the Colombian Larry Flynt or what? I'm not biting on that one.

Jose L. Peñarredonda (@noalsilencio) argues that,

Lo que va a ser interesante entre la pelea entre Soho y el Procurador es que van a llevar a los tribunales el concepto de ‘arte'

The interesting thing about the fight between SoHo and the Inspector General will be the concept of ‘art' being carried to court.

Photographer Manuel Noguera Salas (@manuelnogueraS) supports the work by Vélez:

@DanielSamperO Un aplauso para Mauric[i]o Velez, La gente se escandaliza por la representación de la realidad? La verdad les duele!

@DanielSamperO Applause for Mauric[i]o Velez, do people get shocked with the representation of reality? Truth hurts!

But Lina Artunduaga (@LinaArtunduaga) disagrees:

Pues a mi las fotos de Vélez no me gustan! Son niños desnudos con un adulto y punto. Parecen más apología que denuncia…

Well, I don't like Vélez's photos! They're naked children with an adult, period. They seem more endorsement than denunciation…

With a similar point of view, María Prieto (@LaRola) tweets:

La publicación de las fotos de #soho no aportan nada al debate de la protección a los menores. Soho social e irreverente ya me sabe mierda.

The publication of the photos by #Soho makes no contribution to the debate about protecting minors. [The] social and irreverent Soho already tastes like shit to me.

Chilean cartoonist Alberto Montt (@albertomontt) tells SoHo's editor-in-chief:

Señor @DanielSamperO, si la gente reaccionase la mitad de indignada x los casos de abusos y pdflia q x las fotos, otro gallo cantaría.

Mr @DanielSamperO, if people reacted with half the outrage with cases of sexual abuse and pedophilia than they have with the photos, things would be quite different.

While Daniel Arango (@stultaviro) criticizes the magazine:

SoHo, revista erótica con prurito intelectual y aire sofisticado, que termina reducida a material masturbatorio de taller de mecánica.

SoHo, erotic magazine with intellectual obsession and sophisticated look, which ends up being reduced to masturbatory material for automobile repair shops.

Dan Gamboa Bohorquez (@larepuvlica) writes:

El contexto es tan importante como el contenido. El trabajo “Dejad que los niños vengan a mí” es muy bueno, pero SoHo no debió patrocinarlo

Context is as important as content. The work “Let the children come to me” is very good, but SoHo shouldn't have endorsed it.

Fernanda Contreras gives her opinion (@PardeGatos) in two tweets (1, 2):

Si alguien, a favor o en contra de Soho, abre diciendo 'sin moralismos', empezó mal. De eso se trata, de debatir sobre morales. En ese sentido, estar a favor de Soho no es ‘no ser moralista', sino argumentar en pro de una moral opuesta a la del Balbuceador.

If someone, for or against Soho, starts by saying ‘no intention to be a moralist', they are beginning the wrong way. That's all it is about: debating about morals. In that sense, to support or oppose Soho is not ‘being moralistic,' but arguing for a morality opposed to the Stammerer General's

Ana Maria Villamil C (@Mme_Bavarde) tells Samper:

@DanielSamperO Así es este país! Se indignan por unas fotos y por la muerte de una lechuza… pero les da igual si matan a una juez!

@DanielSamperO This is how this country is! They are outraged because of some pictures and the death of an owl… but they don't care if a judge is murdered!

Tiffany Aching (@AgnesCheshire) says that,

A los curas les queda fácil comerse niños porque la iglesia tiene muchas organizaciones y colegios. Y También trabajan con niños vulnerables

For Catholic priests, it's easy to have sex with children because the church has many organizations and schools. And they also work with vulnerable kids.

SoHo's editor-in-chief Daniel Samper Ospira (@DanielSamperO) tweeted (1, 2):

Los esfuerzos de las autoridades deberían ser contra la pedofilia, no contra el fotógrafo que la tomó como temática de trabajo y de denuncia[.] Las fotos no inducen a malos pensamientos con los niños, sino a sentir indignación ante el cura que les coquetea.

The authorities' efforts should [focus] against pedophilia, not against the photographer which used it as a subject for work and denunciation[.] The photos don't incite to [have] impure thoughts with the children, but to feeling outrage at the priest flirting with them.

On the local blogosphere, Jonathan from A la diestra [es] defends Ms Hoyos' request, while Carlos Forero harshly criticizes Samper and Vélez on Segunda Plana [es]:

Lo hecho por Vélez y Samper es asqueroso, usar a menores de edad desnudos en una exposición artística o en una revista para adultos es depravado, su supuesta iniciativa de denuncia se queda corta ante el hecho de la exhibición de los cuerpos de los niños.

What Vélez and Samper did is disgusting, using naked minors for an artistic exposition or an adult magazine is perverted, their alleged initiative of denunciation runs short before the fact of the exhibition of the children's bodies.

But David Osorio at De avanzada supports [es] Samper by republishing the controversial photos and attacking the Inspector General:

[E]n estos días el fanático, fundamentalista e intolerante Ordóñez ha vuelto a poner todas las armas que tiene a su alcance, lanza en ristre contra la revista SoHo, una vez más, por unas fotos que no son de su retorcido católico gusto y agrado.

In the last few days the fanatic, fundamentalist, and intolerant [Inspector General] Ordóñez has set up again all the weapons in his reach, attacking SoHo magazine, again, because of some photos which aren't of his twisted, catholic liking.

Global Voices in English

Tagged with:
 

In a “stunning twist,” Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s (R) legislation “limiting collective bargaining for public workers was published Friday despite a judge’s hold on the measure, prompting a dispute over whether it takes effect Saturday,” the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports.

Said Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald (R): “It’s published. It’s law. That’s what I contend.”

The New York Times notes the Walker administration issued a short statement: “The administration will carry out the law as required.”
Taegan Goddard’s Political Wire

Tagged with:
 

In yet another twist in the controversy in Wisconsin swirling around Gov. Scott Walker’s bill that would deep-six collective bargaining for public unions, the legislation was published — ignoring a court restraining order. This is likely to further arouse passions and polarize Wisconsin as well as other parts of the country where labor unions are under being challenged by GOP governors:

In a stunning twist, controversial legislation limiting collective bargaining for public workers was published on Friday despite a judge’s hold on the measure, sparking a dispute over whether it takes effect Saturday.

The legislation was published Friday to the Legislature’s website with a footnote that acknowledges the restraining order by a Dane County judge. But the posting says state law “requires the Legislative Reference Bureau to publish every act within 10 working days after its date of enactment.”

The measure sparked massive protests at the Capitol and lawsuits by opponents because it would eliminate the ability of most public workers to bargain over anything but wages.

The restraining order was issued against Democratic Secretary of State Doug La Follette. But the bill was published by the reference bureau, which was not named in the restraining order.

This is basically “ends justify the means” politics: using a loophole.

Laws normally take effect a day after they are published, and a top GOP lawmaker said that meant it will become law Saturday. But the nonpartisan legislative official who published the law disagreed.

“I think this is a ministerial act that forwards it to the secretary of state,” said Stephen Miller, director of the Legislative Reference Bureau. “I don’t think this act makes it become effective. My understanding is that the secretary of state has to publish it in the (official state) newspaper for it to become effective.
Prediction: Walker will insist it is now valid and implement it where he can.
Walker signed the bill March 11. Under state law, it must be published within 10 working days, which was Friday.

The law has not been printed in the Wisconsin State Journal, the official state newspaper, as other laws are. Late Friday, State Journal publisher Bill Johnston said in an email that the notice for the law had been scheduled to run but had been canceled. He did not elaborate.

Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald (R-Juneau) claimed it didn’t matter that it hasn’t appeared in the paper.

“It’s published,” Fitzgerald said. “It’s law. That’s what I contend.”

The question is: how will independent voters react to this? Polls have shown that in Wisconsin and elsewhere Walker’s actions are not winning the argument. This move, at first blush, at least, seems a “whatever it takes” on this issue. But the problem for Walker and the GOP is that many Americans have clearly now concluded that it isn’t just the budget at play in Wisconsin and other states where Republican governors are slicing away rights that were considered a “given” in American life. There is an ineffable aroma of power politics — partially ideology and part an effort to remove a group that has traditionally supported Democrats, in the believe it’d hurt the Dems in 2012.

However you can now predict this: Wisconsin is likely to rally unions and many union members more than ever to the Democratic party and rally the party’s base, even if they are not totally pleased with Barack Obama.

A CROSS SECTION OF VIEWPOINTS ON THIS ISSUE

-Firedog Lake:

We still don’t know if the state Supreme Court will take up the restraining order on the bill, which has been appealed by the state Attorney General. But the Walker Administration is acting like the restraining order didn’t exist.

The level of contempt for the law is astounding to me…

…Of course, the point is not necessarily whether the Secretary of State has the sole power to publish law – that looks clear to me. It’s whether the Walker Administration THINKS the bill is now published and law that’s the problem, and what will be the remedy for that.

-Allahpundit:

….Democrats are surely on their way back to court even as you’re reading this to demand that the TRO be expanded to cover the LRB, Walker, the legislature, and everyone else under the sun. The judge did, after all, enjoin “further implementation” of the law generally before specifying a particular actor, so they’ll probably win and the scope of the order will be enlarged. In fact, according to the Journal-Sentinel story quoted above, there’s already a new court action pending that challenges the collective bargaining law on some sort of equal protection grounds (treating one group of workers differently from another by limiting their CB privileges) and argues that the state GOP should have needed a three-fifths quorum to pass it instead of the simple majority quorum they used. Nothing should change here, in other words, and since the state supreme court is probably going to deal with this sooner rather than later, even if the law is implemented immediately its ultimate fate should be decided in a few days anyway.

-Freedom Eden:

Good grief.

The law is being followed: State law “requires the Legislative Reference Bureau to publish every act within 10 working days after its date of enactment..


The Moderate Voice

Tagged with:
 

Change.


This has nothing to do with Walker or the GOP, it seems, although it’ll surely be demagogued that way by Democrats looking to keep the fires of outrageous outrage burning in their newly motivated base. The Narrative for the past month has been “Rogue Republicans!”, and ignoring a judge’s order certainly sounds roguish — except, [...]

Read this post »

Hot Air » Top Picks

Tagged with:
 

Last week, we asked the New York Times to correct an article by James C. McKinley Jr. that falsely claimed FBI informant and BigGovernment contributor Brandon Darby “encouraged” the left-wing terrorist plot to firebomb the 2008 RNC convention on which he blew the proverbial whistle.  First, we pointed out that this assertion had been debunked by both the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Minnesota and one of the convicted plotters.  We then brought in journalist Matthew Vadum, an expert on Darby’s incredible story, to write up a more comprehensive article to provide broader context to the Times’s smear.  But the record went uncorrected.

So we pressed the Times even more, this time getting another expert on this case, James Walsh of the Minneapolis Star Tribune, to reach out to Mr. McKinley and point out the egregious error in the NYT piece.  We were forwarded the following email written by Mr. Walsh:

I sent an email to the NYT reporter this morning. In it, I said that I covered the case and that Darby was never proven to have encourage or participated in any violence. I told the reporter that [David McKay] made that assertion and won a hung jury, but later admitted that he lied when it became apparent that [Neil] Crowder would testify against him.

I got this response:

“Thank you for you letter and for straightening us out on that point.  Yours. Jim”

For what it’s worth….

James Walsh
Staff Writer
Federal Courts and Federal Agencies
Star Tribune

According to Walsh’s email, Times reporter James C. McKinley Jr. is now crystal-clear that there was never any evidence to suggest Mr. Darby did anything to encourage the plot to murder Republicans, yet his article remains uncorrected.

For over a week now, the “newspaper of record” has allowed the record to contain a horrendous falsehood against an American patriot who saved countless lives.  This is not just a journalistic faux pas, it’s quite possibly libel.


Big Journalism

Tagged with:
 

Last week, we asked the New York Times to correct an article by James C. McKinley Jr. that falsely claimed FBI informant and BigGovernment blogger Brandon Darby “encouraged” the left-wing terrorist plot to firebomb the 2008 RNC convention on which he blew the proverbial whistle.  First, we pointed out that this assertion had been debunked by the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Minnesota and one of the convicted plotters.  We then brought in journalist Matthew Vadum, an expert on the Darby’s incredible story, to write up a more comprehensive article to provide broader context to Times’s smear.  But the record went uncorrected.

So we pressed the Times even more, this time getting another excerpt on this case, James Walsh of the Minneapolis Star Tribune, to reach out to Mr. McKinley and point out the egregious error in his piece.  Mr. Walsh sent us the following:

I sent an email to the NYT reporter this morning. In it, I said that I covered the case and that Darby was never proven to have encourage or participated in any violence. I told the reporter that [David McKay] made that assertion and won a hung jury, but later admitted that he lied when it became apparent that [Neil] Crowder would testify against him.

I got this response:

“Thank you for you letter and for straightening us out on that point.  Yours. Jim”

For what it’s worth….

James Walsh
Staff Writer
Federal Courts and Federal Agencies
Star Tribune

According to Walsh’s email, Times reporter James C. McKinley Jr. is now crystal-clear that there was never any evidence to suggest Mr. Darby did anything to encourage a plot to murder Republicans, yet his post remains uncorrected.

For the “newspaper of record” to allow the record to contain such a horrendous falsehood against an American patriot who saved countless lives for over a week without a correction is not just a journalistic faux pas, it’s quite possibly libel.


Big Journalism

Tagged with:
 

Florida Senate President Mike Haridopolos (R), who is running for the GOP nomination for U.S. Senate in 2012, wrote a book on politics for Brevard Community College four years ago and was paid $ 152,000 in taxpayer money for the effort, the AP reports.

But the 175-page book was never published because it “doesn’t come close to meeting the original contract’s call for a publishable, textbook-quality look at the development of the Florida Legislature, state constitution, the governor’s office and judiciary from pre-statehood until present. But college officials say the book, mostly Haridopolos’ advice on running for office, is useful and will soon be distributed to students.”
Taegan Goddard’s Political Wire

Tagged with:
 

(Randy Barnett)

My article, Commandeering the People: Why the Individual Health Insurance Mandate is Unconstitutional, has been published by the NYU Journal of Law and Liberty. You can download a pdf of the published version here. This is the abstract:

The “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” includes what is called an “individual responsibility requirement” or mandate that all persons buy health insurance from a private company and a separate “penalty” enforcing this requirement. In this paper, I do not critique the individual mandate on originalist grounds. Instead, I explain why the individual mandate is unconstitutional under the existing doctrine by which the Supreme Court construes the Commerce and Necessary and Proper Clauses and the tax power. There are three principal claims.

First (Part II), since the New Deal, the Supreme Court has developed a doctrine allowing the regulation of wholly intrastate activity: the substantial effects doctrine. Although commonly conceived as a Commerce Clause doctrine, from its inception this doctrine has been grounded in the Necessary and Proper Clause. In the 1990s, the Supreme Court developed a judicially administrable test for whether it is “necessary” for Congress to reach intrastate activity that substantially affects interstate commerce: the distinction between economic and noneconomic intrastate activity. Because the individual mandate fails to satisfy the requirements of this test as understood under existing doctrine, it exceeds the power granted to Congress by the Commerce and Necessary and Proper Clauses as currently construed by the Supreme Court. The mandate also fails to satisfy an alternative to the substantial effects doctrine that was proposed by Justice Scalia in a concurring opinion in Gonzales v. Raich because it extends beyond the regulation of intrastate activity to reach inactivity.

Second (Part III), because the “individual responsibility requirement” purports to be a regulation of commerce and cannot possibly be construed as a tax, it is not justified under the tax power of Congress; and, if the “requirement” or mandate is an unconstitu-tional regulation, there is nothing for the “penalty” to enforce. Neither is the penalty, considered apart from the regulatory requirement, a tax under current doctrine.

Third (Part IV), the Supreme Court should not further expand Congress’s power beyond existing doctrine to allow it to mandate that individuals engage in economic activity by entering into contracts with private companies. Such economic mandates are directly analogous to the commandeering of the states that the Supreme Court has held to be an improper exercise of the commerce power. The very few mandates that are imposed on the people pertain to their fundamental duties as citizens of the United States, such as the duty to defend the country or to pay for its operation. A newfound congressional power to impose economic mandates to facilitate the regulation of interstate commerce would fundamentally alter the relationship of citizen and state by unconstitutionally commandeering the people.

In Part V, I conclude with a “realist” assessment of the likelihood that the Supreme Court will actually find the mandate to be unconstitutional.




The Volokh Conspiracy

Tagged with:
 

Jihad against the freedom of speech. “Danes say men plotted to cut throats,” from UPI, January 31 (thanks to Block Ness):

COPENHAGEN, Denmark, Jan. 31 (UPI) — Accused terrorists planned to cut the throats of reporters at a Danish newspaper that printed Mohammed cartoons, police wiretaps reveal.

The men hoped to kill as many people as possible at Jyllands-Posten within 20 minutes, recordings made by the Danish security service PET and published Monday in the Ekstra Bladet newspaper show.

The three men traveled from Sweden to Denmark Dec. 29 and met near Copenhagen to plot the attack, authorities said.

During a prayer, one of them said, “When the unfaithful are gathered, tie them up and cut their throats,” the report said….

“When you meet the unbelievers in battle, strike at their necks…” — Qur’an 47:4

Jihad Watch

Tagged with:
 

The jihad network is international and found in every Western country. It thus calls for a coordinated international response, particularly from the Western governments that instead have not even admitted the nature of the threat itself.

Note also how CagePrisoners played the Muslim Victimhood Card with one of the jihadis who was just arrested for the mass-murder plot against the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten.

“British links to Mumbai-style machinegun plot,” by Duncan Gardham in the Telegraph, January 5 (thanks to Benedict):

Suspected terrorists arrested on their way to launch a Mumbai-style machinegun attack on a Danish newspaper had links with a network in Britain it can be disclosed.

Three men were arrested last week with a submachine gun, silencer and ammunition in the boot of their car after traveling from Sweden to Denmark to launch attacks in which they apparently planned to raid the offices of the newspaper and kill as many people as possible.

The arrested men are thought to have links with two men in Derby who were part of a network run by al-Qaeda mastermind Ilyas Kashmiri, one of the world’s most wanted men….

However CagePrisoners, a British group campaigning for Muslim prisoners, used one of the figures arrested in the alleged Danish plot, Munir Awad, as a case-study for unjust imprisonment after he was arrested on separate trips to Somalia and Pakistan.

CagePrisoners, which is supported by the Joseph Rowntree trust and Amnesty International, has previously helped publicise the work of Anwar al-Awlaki, a senior figure with al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsular.

Jihad Watch

Tagged with:
 

(Eugene Volokh)

The New York Times reports:

A group of men arrested in Denmark on Wednesday were about to mount a “Mumbai style” attack on the Danish newspaper that ignited Muslim fury around the world by publishing satirical cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad in 2005, the head of the Danish Security and Intelligence Service said….

Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen of Denmark told reporters that he was “shocked” by the planned attack.

“Regardless of today’s event, it remains my conviction that terrorism must not lead us to change our open society and our values, especially democracy and free speech,” he said.

Thanks to Prof. Howard Friedman (Religion Clause) for the pointer. UPDATE: A commenter asked for a link to the cartoons, so I thought I’d mention that they are reproduced and discussed in this post.




The Volokh Conspiracy

Tagged with:
 

All the best periodicals showcase the intelligence of their readership on their letters page-and at The American Conservative, we want to continue in this tradition.  The editors look forward to publishing your replies to our authors in next month’s print edition, which is due to hit newsstands only a few weeks from now. This month’s features included:

Please send your replies to [email protected]. (Try to keep your remarks pithy; they may need to edited due to space limitations.)

The American Conservative

Tagged with:
 

(Orin Kerr)

The final version of my latest article, Ex Ante Regulation of Computer Search and Seizure, 96 Va. L. Rev. 1241 (2010), has now been posted on the Virginia Law Review’s website.




The Volokh Conspiracy

Tagged with:
 
m6.jpegWorth committing mass murder for

Instead, it blew up in his face.

Motoon Rage just goes on and on: “Bomb suspect ‘targeted’ Danish paper Jyllands-Posten,” from the BBC, September 17 (thanks to all who sent this in):

Danish police think a man hurt in a blast was making a letter bomb to use against a newspaper which published cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.

The man was arrested in a park in Copenhagen on 10 September after a small explosion at a nearby hotel.

Police spokesman Svend Foldager said the device would have had the explosive force of a hand grenade.

He was “reasonably confident” Jyllands-Posten had been targeted by the suspect, who denies any crime.

The suspected would-be letter bomber pleaded not guilty to firearms charges and putting lives at risk when he appeared in court on 11 September.

He has been named by police as Lors Dukayev, born in 1986 in Chechnya and now living in Belgium….

Jihad Watch

Tagged with: