Bloomberg.com reports:

Ford Motor Co., the world's second biggest carmaker, has had a television commercial for its Land Rover brand banned by the U.K. communications regulator after it was judged to "normalize" the use of guns.

The advertisement, which featured a woman brandishing a gun later revealed to be a starting pistol, breached the Advertising Standards Code and must not be shown again, Ofcom said in an e-mailed statement. The regulator received 348 complaints against the ad, many concerned that the commercial glamorized guns and made it "appear that guns are fun and cool." . . .

Ofcom said glamorization is "part and parcel" of the advertising process but this commercial "normalized" gun ownership in a domestic setting. The pistol, fired by the woman into the air as a man got into his car, was used in "an apparent casual manner and just for fun," Ofcom said. . . .

Handguns, as I understand it, are indeed largely banned in the U.K.; but this wasn't an ad for handguns. (Even under U.S. law, which as I understand it is more speech-protective than are U.K. or European free speech norms, an advertisement for an illegal product is unprotected.) Rather, it was an ad that the government thought spread an idea -- handguns are "fun and cool" -- that the government disapproves of. So of course the solution is: ban it.

Thanks to Dan Gifford for the pointer.

I've long declaimed against online polls, largely because they involve self-selected samples — that X% of the people who chose to participate voted in a particular way tells us next to nothing about what the public at large, or any other segment of the public at large, thinks.

But MSNBC has managed to come up with a poll that has a problem much less subtle than the one I describe above. Here's how the question is framed, I kid you not:

QUESTION OF THE DAY

Did Rudy Giuliani's speech reassure you or move you to support the Bush-Cheney ticket?

Reassure Move you to support

Yup, those are the only two options. The problem is so glaring that I have to assume it was an accident — but what an accident.

Thanks to Marty Lederman for the pointer.

UPDATE: Gil Milbauer reports that this has been fixed, and the choices are now "yes" and "no."

It's innuendo, but it's pretty repulsive innuendo (at least unless Dennis Hastert has something to back it up). From Fox News Sunday, Aug. 29, 2004:

[Host Chris] WALLACE: Let me switch subjects. You both had very deep reservations about McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform before it was passed. In fact, I think you say in your book, Mr. Speaker, that you thought it was the worst piece of legislation that had been passed by a Republican Congress since you've come to Washington.

Now that everyone seems upset with these so-called independent 527 groups, whether it's MoveOn.org on the liberal side of the spectrum or Swift Boat Veterans for Truth on the conservative side, do you feel like saying, "I told you so"?

HASTERT: Well, you know, that doesn't do any good. You know, but look behind us at this convention. I remember when I was a kid watching my first convention in 1992, when both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party laid out their platform, laid out their philosophy, and that's what they followed.

Here in this campaign, quote, unquote, "reform," you take party power away from the party, you take the philosophical ideas away from the party, and give them to these independent groups.

You know, I don't know where George Soros gets his money. I don't know where -- if it comes overseas or from drug groups or where it comes from. And I...

WALLACE: Excuse me?

HASTERT: Well, that's what he's been for a number years -- George Soros has been for legalizing drugs in this country. So, I mean, he's got a lot of ancillary interests out there.

WALLACE: You think he may be getting money from the drug cartel?

HASTERT: I'm saying I don't know where groups -- could be people who support this type of thing. I'm saying we don't know. The fact is we don't know where this money comes from.

Before, transparency -- and what we're talking about in transparency in election reform is you know where the money comes from. You get a $25 check or a $2,500 check or $25,000 check, put it up on the Internet. You know where it comes from, and there it is.

Hastert's substantive criticisms of campaign finance may be legitimate -- but the suggestion that Soros might be getting money from illegal drug distributors, even as a hypothetical example, is pretty reprehensible. (Imagine that, say, Ted Kennedy said "I don't know where Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are getting their money, if it comes from overseas or from neo-Nazis"; I take it that we'd be pretty appalled, even if Kennedy was just giving a hypothetical example.) And while "drug groups" may be slightly ambiguous in other contexts, where it might refer to pro-drug legalization groups, in this context it pretty clearly does suggest drug criminals, partly because Hastert didn't deny the connection when Wallace raised it and partly because the pro-legalization groups are funded by Soros, not the other way around.

As Jesse Walker (Hit & Run) points out, illegal drug dealers are actually likely to oppose drug legalization rather than supporting it: "Drug prohibition acts as a price support and a barrier to entry; it helps the cartels maintain their market position. They're about as likely to fund a legalization campaign as they are to give Denny Hastert an all-expenses-paid vacation in Bermuda or -- as long as we're throwing around groundless insinuations -- a free sex tour in Thailand." But in any event, Hastert shouldn't be making such unsupported innuendos, whether they make economic sense or not.

this time over IndyMedia's posting of delegates' "names, home addresses, e-mail addresses and the New York-area hotels where many are staying." The Secret Service is investigating.

I'm not sure whether such postings break any existing laws, or whether a law could indeed ban them consistently with the First Amendment. While such speech may indeed facilitate crime, it is also useful for legal and perhaps even constitutionally protected purposes, such as remonstrating with the delegates or demonstrating outside their hotels (or even their homes). See generally NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware (1982), which held that publishing the names of people who weren't complying with the boycott was constitutionally protected. (The speech in Claiborne didn't involve publishing addresses, but in a small county of about 10,000 people, knowing someone's name could pretty quickly get you his address.)

On the other hand, the Secret Service may be legitimately investigating to see whether any illegal conduct against the delegates is planned. Constitutionally protected speech may often trigger an investigation: This is most obvious after a crime is committed -- if Joe Schmoe is killed, and it turns out that I had earlier expressed the constitutionally protected opinion that he needed killing, the police could certainly investigate me more closely because of what I had said -- but I think it's equally true when the police are trying to prevent a crime. So it's hard to evaluate the investigation based on just the brief snippet that I saw reported.

Iain Murray (Edge of England's Sword) has several posts on this; go here and scroll down, and also see here.

I'm not sure I agree with the last post, which argues:

It occurs to me that impeachment may actually have been the subject of implied repeal under the much-derided (by me among others), but nevertheless law of the land, Human Rights Act 1998.

How does the impeachment process as described by the authors square with these provisions?

[Article 6] In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.

How can their Lordships assembled be regarded as an "independent and impartial tribunal"? And:

[Article 7] No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed.

An undefined "High Crime / Misdemeanour" is patently contrary to this article.

I know nothing about British law, but my instinct is that if an impeachment — even for a "High Crime" — leads only to expulsion from office, it's more akin to the firing of a high government official (though a highly specialized sort of firing) than to a true criminal conviction. It doesn't make much sense to have the same protections for the accused there as when the accused is put in danger of prison, death, or the other consequences of criminal convictions; the main issue here is the welfare of the realm, not the interests of the government official, who ought not be seen as having any property interest in his position. And it would surprise me if English courts interpret these provisions, which seem focused on true criminal prosecutions or at least matters where the individual does have some sort of personal right at stake, as applying to impeachment. But in any event, Iain is the expert on English matters, and I'm not.

UPDATE: I've exchanged a few e-mails with Iain about my quibble, and they reminded me to acknowledge what Iain quite correctly pointed out (and what Mark Kleiman has just blogged about) — — in English history, the most prominent impeachments (centuries ago) have resulted in criminal punishment. The U.S. constitutional rule that an impeachment may at most punish someone by removal from federal office, perhaps coupled with a prohibition on future federal officeholding is actually a reaction to that history.

Nonetheless, I strongly suspect that in this impeachment, all that Blair's enemies would seek is his removal from office. As a political matter, it seems highly counterproductive for them to ask for more. And if that's all they ask for, then I don't think that the process ought to be treated as a criminal process.

FURTHER UPDATE: I told you that Iain is the epxert on English matters and I'm not; he writes that a 1999 report of the Parliamentary Committee on Privilege provides the following:

Under this [. . .] procedure [i.e., impeachment], all persons, whether peers or commoners, may be prosecuted and tried by the two Houses for any crimes whatsoever. The House of Commons determines when an impeachment should be instituted. A member, in his place, first charges the accused of high treason, or of certain crimes and misdemeanours. After supporting his charge with proofs the member moves for impeachment. If the accusation is found on examination by the House to have sufficient grounds to justify further proceedings, the motion is put to the House. If agreed, a member (or members) are ordered by the House to go to the bar of the House of Lords. There in the name of the House of Commons and of all the Commons of the United Kingdom, the member impeaches the accused person. A Commons committee is then appointed to draw up articles of impeachment which are debated. When agreed they are ingrossed and delivered to the Lords. The Lords obtain written answers from the accused which are communicated to the Commons. The Commons may then communicate a reply to the Lords. If the accused is a peer, he is attached by order to that House. If a commoner, he is arrested and delivered to Black Rod. The Lords may release the accused on bail. The Commons appoints 'managers' for the trial to prepare attendance of witnesses on his behalf, and is entitled to defence by counsel. When the case, including examination and reexamination, is concluded, the Lord High Steward puts to each peer, (beginning with the junior baron) the question on the first of the charges: then to each peer the question on the second charge and so on. If found guilty, judgement is not pronounced unless and until demanded by the Commons (which may, at this stage, pardon the accused). An impeachment may continue from session to session, or over a dissolution. Under the Act of Settlement the sovereign has no right of pardon. The last impeachment was in 1805 (Lord Melville). The procedure has not been widely adopted in the Commonwealth. However, it survives, in a somewhat different form, in the constitution of the United States of America.

to let Prof. Natelson teach constitutional law: As I reported in early July, quoting a local newspaper:

University of Montana professor Rob Natelson, accusing the Law School of discriminating against him for years because of his conservative political views, has asked the state Board of Regents to overturn a decision denying him the opportunity to teach constitutional law. . . .

In his appeal, Natelson cited the Montana Constitution ban on political discrimination and said political discrimination by state agencies can be unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. . .

A hearing officer has ruled that Prof. Natelson was indeed wrongly denied the opportunity to teach constitutional law, and should be allowed to do so; and the University President has therefore ordered the Dean of the law school to let Prof. Natelson teach the class. The decision, though, was based on the law school's having not followed its own traditional informal rules on the matter; the hearing officer said he didn't have to decide whether political discrimination was present. Some of Prof. Natelson other charges, also mentioned in my earlier post, were also seemingly not reached.

The fabulous UCLA Law Library has gotten me copies of the hearing officer's opinion and the President's decision, so I've put them on the Web for those who are interested.

Another interesting column -- don't know if it's right, but it's definitely worth reading. Here's an excerpt:

One of John F. Kerry's most damning accusations against President Bush is that he has made America a global pariah, thereby undercutting the international cooperation we need to win the war on terrorism. . . . Opinion polls show that a large number of Americans have bought this argument. . . .

It's easy to see why so many people would come to this conclusion, since surveys do show that U.S. popularity has declined in many countries during the past four years. Obviously it's better, all things being equal, to be liked than disliked. Kerry has a point when he accuses the Bush administration of squandering some opportunities to garner support abroad. The mishandling of Turkey before the Iraq war is a case in point.

Where Kerry is dead wrong, demonstrably wrong, is in suggesting that this unpopularity is taking a heavy toll on America's efforts to win the war on terrorism. Actually, by all indications, the United States is now getting significantly more cooperation in fighting terrorists than it ever did in the balmy days of Bill Clinton, who did all the sweet multilateral things that Kerry endorses -- trying to broker an Israeli-Palestinian accord, signing the Kyoto global warming treaty, not offending "Old Europe" or threatening the power of Middle Eastern autocrats. . . .

What's going on here? Why are countries from Pakistan to Portugal doing so much to help the United States if George W. Bush has purportedly done so much to alienate them? Chalk it up to pure self-interest. Many nations have come to realize, as they never did in the past, that Islamist terrorists pose a mortal threat to them. . . .

There was no question that the United States was better liked abroad in the 1990s, at least if public opinion surveys are to be believed, but was it more respected? When the Clinton administration went privately to Middle Eastern countries seeking cooperation against terrorism, it sometimes got significant help -- the Jordanians, for instance, helped bust up the 2000 millennium plot. . . . But often the Clinton administration got the cold shoulder from governments that were wary of a fickle America that would likely flee at the first sign of adversity . . . . Pakistan and Saudi Arabia were actively aiding the Taliban and perhaps even al Qaeda before 9/11 because they were more scared of alienating Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar than Bill Clinton. Bush's steely response to the 9/11 attacks helped change the calculus within these wavering states: They became more wary of trifling with the gunslinger in the White House than with his smooth-talking predecessor. . . .

In cataloguing the consequences of American unpopularity abroad, Democrats suggest that Bush is driving more recruits into al Qaeda's arms. This is a real possibility, but it is not a claim that can be verified or falsified, since there is no roll call of terrorists. All we can say for sure is that al Qaeda had no trouble recruiting young Muslims to attack U.S. targets in the 1990s even as Bill Clinton was doing everything possible to make America more popular. . . .

No doubt the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq have driven some Islamic zealots over the edge and led them to pick up a rocket-propelled grenade or a homemade bomb. Certainly some Afghans and Iraqis have opportunities they never had before to attack U.S. soldiers, if not U.S. civilians. But it's also true that the international forces opposing al Qaeda have gotten immeasurably stronger during the Bush administration . . . .

(For many more details, see the column.)

Alexia, which turns out to mean -- and in English, not in Hebrew or Greek -- "Loss of the ability to read, usually caused by brain lesions." (Thanks to A Word A Day for the pointer.)

According to 1990 census data, 0.003% person of the female population of the U.S., which is to say about 4000 women, are named Alexia. On the other hand, it's better than calling your boy Dick, or for that matter calling your girl either Latrina or Titiporn.

Who rules us with an iron rod?
Who moves at Satan's beck and nod?
Who heeds not man,
Who heeds not God?
Van Buren, Van Buren!

Who would his friends, his country sell
Do other deeds too base to tell
Deserves the lowest place in hell
Van Buren, Van Buren!