How would the law even be enforced, in theory, outside of Florida?
And couldn't bloggers/journalists just publish stuff via a hosting service that's located out of state?
Besides, anonymous and pseudonymous bloggers are untargetable by definition, if they take even the laxest efforts to conceal their real identities.
This isn't just a ridiculous law, it seems completely unenforceable in general.
The only exception is that it may be useful in harassing or annoying a mere handful of bloggers that are already known to the state.
> Besides, anonymous and pseudonymous bloggers are untargetable by definition, if they take even the laxest efforts to conceal their real identities
Courts have a process called "discovery." You can sue a John Doe and then use discovery to find out who you're actually suing[1]. Yes, really. This process could potentially compel hosting services, publishing platforms, ISPs, and so on to provide the information they have.
I'm familiar with discovery. Generally speaking, it won't work on hosting companies with headquarters outside the US. (American-style civil discovery is frowned-upon in most other nations.) It might not work on companies hosted in other states, for it should be possible to challenge any out-of-state subpoena in local courts. In most situations, this would likely be unsuccessful and not worth attempting, but in this sort of situation, I reckon it might work... for, ultimately, the same reason some states have begun to prohibit out-of-state discovery in abortion-related cases.
They aren't yet concerned with people outside of Florida. The goal of this is to terrorize honest people voicing their legitimate concerns over the terrible leadership of the state. The law only needs to last for a few years. But even so, there's a great chance that these laws are upheld by the current SCOTUS.
Once President DeSantis is in office, this will serve as a blue print for a national version of the same state sanctioned harassment laws.
I love how Republican governors go on about the sanctity of the constitution, yet their favorite pastime is launching endless first amendment incompatible attacks on their (perceived) enemies. I guess their constituency is not concerned about that but does appreciate the pointless attacks.
Why do you think they attack education first? Because if you don't actually understand what that means then they can claim it means anything they want.
The bill to punish Disney for their political speech was technically originated in the FL legislature as well. That was all Ron Desantis. He is in control there. Just like he took control of the process of drawing new electoral maps. The FL legislature had their own map, but it was only extremely gerrymandered, not grotesquely gerrymandered, so he strong armed them into passing his own grotesquely gerrymandered map. This despite the fact that he has no actual role in that process. It was just a sheer exercise of political power.
Ron Desantis owns FL politics.
Edit: Honestly I wrote all of that forgetting about the subject matter of the bill. You can’t possibly believe such a bill, in reality, originated anywhere but the Governor’s office. Come on, nobody is that naive.
I mean where are the supposed free-speech defenders?
Especially after hearing non-stop about the supposed free-speech concerns of a twitter algorithm that they were convinced was partially benefiting one side more than the other. Something trivial in scope and still not entirely clear was actually happening - here we have actual insane free speech authoritarian concerns and it's crickets.
You must register with the state before speaking out against a government authority, or will be fined daily if you don't.
So much complaining about why can't they use the n-word more often and yet when it comes to actual serious immensely consequential free-speech concerns from a potential leading presidential candidate nothing.
The hypocrisy is unbearable at this point. No different than Elon the supposed free speech proponent whose main act has been to ban people speaking out against him.
> I mean where are the supposed free-speech defenders?
> Especially after hearing non-stop about the supposed free-speech concerns of a twitter algorithm that they were convinced was partially benefiting one side more than the other.
They’re frauds. It was never about protecting free speech. It was about protecting speech that they like.
Nowhere to be seen, as expected. They've only been worried about authoritarian-lite ideas receiving poor play in the marketplace of ideas and sometimes even social consequences. But using the state and it's monopoly on violence to enshrine such ideas doesn't run counter to their desired worldview so it's crickets from their corner.
Who specifically are you accusing of hypocrisy here? Because yeah, as a "free-speech defender" this is pretty blatantly unconstitutional, and will almost certainly never pass, and it should probably raise questions about the guy who authored it (who I've never heard of).
The republican party, from whence this came, are being accused of hypocrisy. As are the likes of Elon, Tucker, etc who would be VERY vocal about any such thing common from a democrat, but here remain silent.
The fact that its blatantly unconstitutional makes even more hypocritical from a party who regularly claim unconditional allegiance to this document.
Bills like this aren't meant to pass on the first go. They are just testing the waters. But its existence is clear evidence of what they really want. Same goes for that bill that, if enacted, would eliminate the democratic party [0] or the bills that did get passed which is letting Desantis exert control over Disney, with the stated goal of making a private company change its content to what he favours. Viewed collectively they show a coherent pattern.
Hooeee, [0] is a whopper. If that passed, a bill to amend the constitution, forbidding punitive slavery, would become must-pass legislation. That'd really fuck Florida's economy if the state had to pay prisoners minimum wage.
> If that passed, a bill to amend the constitution, forbidding punitive slavery, would become must-pass legislation
Right now, it wouldn't pass with a Republican House, or (given the supermajority requirement to propose an amendment) with a narrowly Democratic Senate. It might not even pass with a widely Democratic Senate; the California legislature failed to pass a bill on this despite a wide Democratic majority.
And it wouldn't be ratified by the required supermajority of states, because lots of states are heavily invested in penal labor.
Outrage over Florida beign extreme on this might make it help polarize Dem states (via the Dem electorate) against it even where instituttionally entrenched, but that would be offset by the effecg of polarizing the issue on the other side.
Oh, I thought younwere suggesting a federal amendment that would render the Florida action invalid, not undoing the action within the Florida system. But, you've got a similar problem in Florida—if the present political alignment is such that such a bill could pass (especially if not by a narrow margin), undoing it is unlikely to be an easy lift, politically.
The "hypocrisy" is only hypocrisy if you think that conservatives believe that all citizens should be treated equally. They do not, never have, and never will. Composer Frank Wilhoit's observation keeps coming up because it explains literally everything:
Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
They want the law to protect conservative speech, but not bind it. They want the law to bind moderate and liberal speech, but not protect it.
it’s a litmus test on their voting base just to make sure desantis voters care more about desantis and ‘owning the libs’ than they care about policy or ideology.
It really is fascinating to see ideology decoupling from voting. The best I can come up with is voting for political aesthetics.
I wonder if this was always the case but we were always too embarrassed to admit it because political elites kept the ideology and aesthetic inline. Reagan was an actor after all
General voting for President has always been an absurd idea. It's impossible for most people to make an informed choice on who's best for such a role—it is guaranteed to turn into a propaganda and showmanship contest. That's why we have the electoral college. Unfortunately, that was poorly-designed and fell to games-playing pretty much immediately, so never actually worked the way it was supposed to, and now we're stuck with the downsides of that and the downsides of a kind of weird not-quite popular election for the position, without the benefits of either.
> this only applies to bloggers who are being paid to blog
So uhh... is it really free speech if you're getting paid to speak? I would argue not so. I would argue: if you're getting paid to speak then you're neither speaking freely in the "free as in free beer" nor the "free as in free speech" interpretations of free.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
I see no carve out about being paid. Your reasons for your speech are your own, you shouldn’t be forced to register to voice opinion about a government official even if you’re employed to give opinions. This stuff isn’t about transparency in government like lobbyist rules. It’s about intimidated critics, which is precisely the reason the first amendment was deemed necessary.
Yeah, the right-wing media sphere is behind him hard, and Biden's popularity's not looking great, to put it mildly. Decent odds DeSantis takes 2024—his biggest hurdle's probably other Republicans in the primary. Glad Democrats used their time in the majority to aggressively fix the problems that made even a very-stupid coup an actual threat, last time... oh, wait. :-/
You just grabbed a sub heading. Here's the text of DeSantis argument FWIW
-> The defamation proposals were spurred by DeSantis, who last month held a roundtable discussion on media defamation and called on the legislature "to protect Floridians from the life-altering ramifications that defamation from the media can cause for a person who does not have the means or the platform to defend himself."
"We've seen over the last generation legacy media outlets increasingly divorce themselves from the truth and instead try to elevate preferred narratives and partisan activism over reporting the facts," DeSantis said. "When the media attacks me, I have a platform to fight back. When they attack everyday citizens, these individuals don't have the adequate recourses to fight back. In Florida, we want to stand up for the little guy against these massive media conglomerates."
In context, it follows Trump frequently complaining about defamation laws being too hard to use to harass media organizations, and use of anti-defamation laws by powerful figures in other countries (with different laws) to suppress criticism. I would absolutely not take DeSantis' claim about why he's pushing it, at face value.
Okay, there is a huge detail missing from Ars' report, and a lot of reports about this, that is key here. If you read the actual text of the bill[0], you'll note that it states:
>(d) “Compensation” includes anything of value provided to a blogger in exchange for a blog post or series of blog posts. If not provided in currency, it must be the fair-market value of the item or service exchanged.
>(2) If a blogger posts to a blog about an elected state officer and receives, or will receive, compensation for that post, the blogger must register with the appropriate office, as 163 identified in paragraph (1)(f), within 5 days after the first 164 post by the blogger which mentions an elected state officer.
So this only applies to bloggers who are being paid to blog. If you or I set up a blog and receive no compensation for it, this does not apply to us. Ordinary folks ability to go to blogger, tumblr, substack, wherever and start posting about their local politicians will not be restricted.
Right! It does change absolutely nothing - you, me, and most people in this thread, assuming we were Florida residents, would still be free to create our own blogs and discuss our politicians on them without fear of legal repercussions pertaining to this bill. :)
>... it’s still ridiculous and unconstitutional. You have free speech rights even if you’re being paid.
It is! And I agree. I just disagree that it "changes absolutely nothing". You could be punished if you're a paid blogger, or unpunished and free to speak your mind if you're not paid. That's worth highlighting, because it further underscores just how absurd this bill is.
I tried my best to quickly highlight a key detail without offering up an opinion one way or another; let other people do that. When pressed further, though, I don't mind clarifying my own thoughts. :)
> I just disagree that it "changes absolutely nothing". You could be punished if you're a paid blogger, or unpunished and free to speak your mind if you're not paid. That's worth highlighting, because it further underscores just how absurd this bill is.
Thanks for the clarification, I now understand why you disagreed with me saying “changes absolutely nothing”.
> “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Read the emphasized clause, anyone or any organization that is publishing writing about public figures qualifies as ‘the press’
"Compensation" doesn't just mean getting commissioned and directly paid cash to write a blog post.
It means if you happen to have any ads at all on your site, and you receive any kind of payment for displaying those ads, you're being compensated and fall under the category of paid blogger. Similarly, if you're using any ad-supported blogging platform, even if you don't directly receive the ad revenue, it could be argued that you're receiving compensation in the form of free publishing services.
Which means that the only bloggers who would be safe are those who provide their content on a completely ad-free platform, presumably paying all their own hosting costs, and not making a single dime to support themselves in the process.
The funny thing is that people who fall into that category are likely very well-off and don't need to support themselves through their writing or reporting. So, as usual, it's the rich who benefit.
So you're saying the banning substacks or any blogs with ads from posting (w/o registering with the state and filing monthly reports) is ok because people can still post about their government on sites where they aren't compensated?
That's not a justification for this proposed law at all to me...
If you wouldn't mind showing where I tried to argue that something "is ok" or tried to justify the proposed bill, that would be great. My intent was simply to highlight a detail that I thought was worth mentioning, and I'm pretty sure I didn't try to argue one way or the other in that post. Hell, if you look further down the comment chain you'll see where I agree that the bill is BS...
Again - please show me where I argued that this bill "is ok" or is "justified". All I did was highlight what the bill said. If folk want to assume, as you are, that that's not enough, fine, that was exactly why I tried to point out that detail in an unbiased manner - to foster discussion around the detail, not have words put in my mouth for simply going, "Uhh, hey guys, anyone see this?".
If I failed, cool, but that's why I've asked you to show me where I actively argued in support of this bill. That way I can actively make myself clear in the future.
> Again - please show me where I argued that this bill "is ok" or is "justified".
So here's the explanation.
> Okay, there is a huge detail missing from Ars' report, and a lot of reports about this, that is key here.
You wrote here that there is a huge detail missing that is key. Implying that this missing detail, being so huge, has a change on the proposed law. There is no huge detail at all. Without your clarification they were drastically down on free-speech, with the detail they are drastically clamping down on free speech.
Writing what you wrote implies that if people understood the detail it would be a different situation and there isn't an issue there. That isn't the case. The detail you were referring to was people receiving any payment. Substacks receive compensation, blogs with ads receive compensation, people with afiliate links receive compensation. Saying all of these people have to register with the government first before criticizing it is horrible and just as horrible if it were all bloggers. That is not a critical detail at all.
It's like saying the law comes out and then someone runs up and says "hey everyone is missing a critical detail, it's only restricting people of a specific ethnicity from criticizing the government". That is not a critical detail at all and has no bearing on anything anyone posted. No different than positing "it's only restricting people wearing blue jeans, not everyone." That is not a critical detail, it's an irrelevant detail. And saying it's critical implies that people now need to interpret the law differently an implicitly says it's not as negative as people are saying it is. All of those are wrong.
That's why everyone who is responding to you is saying exactly what they are - because your post is implying (unintentionally apparently) that that detail changes how horrible the proposed law is.
Why not highlight how absurd the proposed text is by pointing out that you have to register your blog with the state if you're paid, but not unpaid? Why not clarify the point for everyone else who seems to be assuming that nobody in the state of FL could have an unregistered political blog under this law? What's the big deal if someone thinks something's worth talking about that you don't?
One of the things that is often pointed out in the First Amendment Auditing community is that the First Amendment does not define "the press," and courts have, by and large, also avoided strictly defined it.
Which essentially means that _anybody_ can be "the press," so long as they are doing journalistic things, like reporting and writing about matters of public interest.
You don't need to work for a newspaper, or for anyone other than yourself. You can be an independent or freelance journalist.
You don't need credentials. Indeed, there is not a single government entity in the country that issues credentials indicating whether a person is a member of the press or not. Certain government offices might issue credentials in the form of access to a particular event, but those credentials are about access, not about legitimacy. You can be "the press" even if no one has ever issued you credentials for anything.
And it's worth noting that the line between traditional newspaper journalism and digital journalism via blogging or other online dissemination is not as clear-cut as you might think. Plenty of traditional newspapers publish op-eds and commentary sections, alongside their news sections. And plenty of traditional newspapers frequently update their online editions.
So even if this proposed bill were not a flagrant violation of the First Amendment, it would be really hard to draw a bright line between newspapers and bloggers, for the purpose of enforcement.
-> The bill was filed in the Florida Senate Tuesday by Senator Jason Brodeur, a Republican.
If enacted, the proposed law would likely be challenged in court on grounds that it violates First Amendment protections of freedom of speech and the press... Defending his bill, Brodeur said, "Paid bloggers are lobbyists who write instead of talk. They both are professional electioneers. If lobbyists have to register and report, why shouldn't paid bloggers?"
Truly captivating argument from the sponsor of the bill. Florida is so lucky to have him.
I don't speak legalese. But am I reading this right? On page 7 section C it makes it sound like the bill is mandating that if you are a blogger that was endorsed by a government entity to write a blog post you're required to report that to the government or be fined. Am I reading this correctly or not?
> (c) The blogger must file reports with the appropriate
office using the electronic filing system:
1. As provided in s. 11.0455 if the blog post concerns an
elected member of the Legislature; or
2. As provided in s.32155 if the blog post concerns an
officer of the executive branch.
(d) The reports must include all of the following:
1. The individual or entity that compensated the blogger
for the blog post.
2. The amount of compensation received from the individual
or entity, regardless of how the compensation was structured.
...
Sorry for the poor formatting I'm on mobile. But if I'm reading this correctly I would be fine with forcing people that get paid by the government to have to publicly disclose that information. But once again, I have no idea if I'm reading it correctly.
You're misreading it a bit. It's any "individual or entity" that pays the blogger for the post, not just a "government entity".
So, if somebody pays you to write about the governor, you have to tell the government who paid you.
I think they're trying to allude to the way the FEC requires disclosures about who pays for campaign ads. But they don't require you to register anything, just to make disclaimers. And that applies to all candidates, not just the sitting officials.
Thanks for the clarification! Yea this bill seems too broadly scoped for what they probably intended it to cover. They should narrow the scope or scrap it entirely if they can't.
That's what "moderates" have said about everything conservatives have sought to pass. That it's purely red meat for the base. And then when it does, they just shrug their shoulders.
82 comments
[ 5.9 ms ] story [ 171 ms ] threadAnd couldn't bloggers/journalists just publish stuff via a hosting service that's located out of state?
Besides, anonymous and pseudonymous bloggers are untargetable by definition, if they take even the laxest efforts to conceal their real identities.
This isn't just a ridiculous law, it seems completely unenforceable in general. The only exception is that it may be useful in harassing or annoying a mere handful of bloggers that are already known to the state.
Courts have a process called "discovery." You can sue a John Doe and then use discovery to find out who you're actually suing[1]. Yes, really. This process could potentially compel hosting services, publishing platforms, ISPs, and so on to provide the information they have.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doe_subpoena
Once President DeSantis is in office, this will serve as a blue print for a national version of the same state sanctioned harassment laws.
Ron Desantis owns FL politics.
Edit: Honestly I wrote all of that forgetting about the subject matter of the bill. You can’t possibly believe such a bill, in reality, originated anywhere but the Governor’s office. Come on, nobody is that naive.
Especially after hearing non-stop about the supposed free-speech concerns of a twitter algorithm that they were convinced was partially benefiting one side more than the other. Something trivial in scope and still not entirely clear was actually happening - here we have actual insane free speech authoritarian concerns and it's crickets.
You must register with the state before speaking out against a government authority, or will be fined daily if you don't.
So much complaining about why can't they use the n-word more often and yet when it comes to actual serious immensely consequential free-speech concerns from a potential leading presidential candidate nothing.
The hypocrisy is unbearable at this point. No different than Elon the supposed free speech proponent whose main act has been to ban people speaking out against him.
> Especially after hearing non-stop about the supposed free-speech concerns of a twitter algorithm that they were convinced was partially benefiting one side more than the other.
They’re frauds. It was never about protecting free speech. It was about protecting speech that they like.
Edit: oh good https://www.thefire.org/news/fire-statement-florida-senate-b...
Really has nothing to do with speech at all, and everything to do with appearing anti woke. Posturing.
When it comes time to spin it, itll be sold as "put an end to under the table woke lobbying"
This proposed law is obviously un-American, and may not hold up to judicial scrutiny.
Edit: it may not even hold up to public scrutiny!
The fact that its blatantly unconstitutional makes even more hypocritical from a party who regularly claim unconditional allegiance to this document.
Bills like this aren't meant to pass on the first go. They are just testing the waters. But its existence is clear evidence of what they really want. Same goes for that bill that, if enacted, would eliminate the democratic party [0] or the bills that did get passed which is letting Desantis exert control over Disney, with the stated goal of making a private company change its content to what he favours. Viewed collectively they show a coherent pattern.
[0] https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/florida-repub... [1] https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/03/desantis-promises-fl...
Right now, it wouldn't pass with a Republican House, or (given the supermajority requirement to propose an amendment) with a narrowly Democratic Senate. It might not even pass with a widely Democratic Senate; the California legislature failed to pass a bill on this despite a wide Democratic majority.
And it wouldn't be ratified by the required supermajority of states, because lots of states are heavily invested in penal labor.
Outrage over Florida beign extreme on this might make it help polarize Dem states (via the Dem electorate) against it even where instituttionally entrenched, but that would be offset by the effecg of polarizing the issue on the other side.
Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
They want the law to protect conservative speech, but not bind it. They want the law to bind moderate and liberal speech, but not protect it.
As someone in a minority group that Desantis is specifically going after, I don't really find it very fascinating, more terrifying.
> this only applies to bloggers who are being paid to blog
So uhh... is it really free speech if you're getting paid to speak? I would argue not so. I would argue: if you're getting paid to speak then you're neither speaking freely in the "free as in free beer" nor the "free as in free speech" interpretations of free.
[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35015088
I see no carve out about being paid. Your reasons for your speech are your own, you shouldn’t be forced to register to voice opinion about a government official even if you’re employed to give opinions. This stuff isn’t about transparency in government like lobbyist rules. It’s about intimidated critics, which is precisely the reason the first amendment was deemed necessary.
Yes.
Either it's the writer's speech, or it's that of whoever is paying for it.
"and there was no one left to speak for me."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...
and this guy wants to be president
-> The defamation proposals were spurred by DeSantis, who last month held a roundtable discussion on media defamation and called on the legislature "to protect Floridians from the life-altering ramifications that defamation from the media can cause for a person who does not have the means or the platform to defend himself."
"We've seen over the last generation legacy media outlets increasingly divorce themselves from the truth and instead try to elevate preferred narratives and partisan activism over reporting the facts," DeSantis said. "When the media attacks me, I have a platform to fight back. When they attack everyday citizens, these individuals don't have the adequate recourses to fight back. In Florida, we want to stand up for the little guy against these massive media conglomerates."
>(d) “Compensation” includes anything of value provided to a blogger in exchange for a blog post or series of blog posts. If not provided in currency, it must be the fair-market value of the item or service exchanged.
>(2) If a blogger posts to a blog about an elected state officer and receives, or will receive, compensation for that post, the blogger must register with the appropriate office, as 163 identified in paragraph (1)(f), within 5 days after the first 164 post by the blogger which mentions an elected state officer.
So this only applies to bloggers who are being paid to blog. If you or I set up a blog and receive no compensation for it, this does not apply to us. Ordinary folks ability to go to blogger, tumblr, substack, wherever and start posting about their local politicians will not be restricted.
[0]https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2023/1316/BillText/Fil...
Right! It does change absolutely nothing - you, me, and most people in this thread, assuming we were Florida residents, would still be free to create our own blogs and discuss our politicians on them without fear of legal repercussions pertaining to this bill. :)
>... it’s still ridiculous and unconstitutional. You have free speech rights even if you’re being paid.
It is! And I agree. I just disagree that it "changes absolutely nothing". You could be punished if you're a paid blogger, or unpunished and free to speak your mind if you're not paid. That's worth highlighting, because it further underscores just how absurd this bill is.
Thanks for the clarification, I now understand why you disagreed with me saying “changes absolutely nothing”.
Read the emphasized clause, anyone or any organization that is publishing writing about public figures qualifies as ‘the press’
It means if you happen to have any ads at all on your site, and you receive any kind of payment for displaying those ads, you're being compensated and fall under the category of paid blogger. Similarly, if you're using any ad-supported blogging platform, even if you don't directly receive the ad revenue, it could be argued that you're receiving compensation in the form of free publishing services.
Which means that the only bloggers who would be safe are those who provide their content on a completely ad-free platform, presumably paying all their own hosting costs, and not making a single dime to support themselves in the process.
The funny thing is that people who fall into that category are likely very well-off and don't need to support themselves through their writing or reporting. So, as usual, it's the rich who benefit.
That's not a justification for this proposed law at all to me...
You wrote:
> Ordinary folks ability to go to blogger, tumblr, substack, wherever and start posting about their local politicians will not be restricted.
How do you know this ? How do you know they won’t sue you to disclose your payments or look at your bank accounts
Florida will put you in jail for talking to your wife if you criticize the government
https://theintercept.com/2023/02/05/ron-desantis-florida-vil...
If I failed, cool, but that's why I've asked you to show me where I actively argued in support of this bill. That way I can actively make myself clear in the future.
So here's the explanation.
> Okay, there is a huge detail missing from Ars' report, and a lot of reports about this, that is key here.
You wrote here that there is a huge detail missing that is key. Implying that this missing detail, being so huge, has a change on the proposed law. There is no huge detail at all. Without your clarification they were drastically down on free-speech, with the detail they are drastically clamping down on free speech.
Writing what you wrote implies that if people understood the detail it would be a different situation and there isn't an issue there. That isn't the case. The detail you were referring to was people receiving any payment. Substacks receive compensation, blogs with ads receive compensation, people with afiliate links receive compensation. Saying all of these people have to register with the government first before criticizing it is horrible and just as horrible if it were all bloggers. That is not a critical detail at all.
It's like saying the law comes out and then someone runs up and says "hey everyone is missing a critical detail, it's only restricting people of a specific ethnicity from criticizing the government". That is not a critical detail at all and has no bearing on anything anyone posted. No different than positing "it's only restricting people wearing blue jeans, not everyone." That is not a critical detail, it's an irrelevant detail. And saying it's critical implies that people now need to interpret the law differently an implicitly says it's not as negative as people are saying it is. All of those are wrong.
That's why everyone who is responding to you is saying exactly what they are - because your post is implying (unintentionally apparently) that that detail changes how horrible the proposed law is.
No. There isn't. That's literally mentioned in the article. Fourth paragraph
Which essentially means that _anybody_ can be "the press," so long as they are doing journalistic things, like reporting and writing about matters of public interest.
You don't need to work for a newspaper, or for anyone other than yourself. You can be an independent or freelance journalist.
You don't need credentials. Indeed, there is not a single government entity in the country that issues credentials indicating whether a person is a member of the press or not. Certain government offices might issue credentials in the form of access to a particular event, but those credentials are about access, not about legitimacy. You can be "the press" even if no one has ever issued you credentials for anything.
And it's worth noting that the line between traditional newspaper journalism and digital journalism via blogging or other online dissemination is not as clear-cut as you might think. Plenty of traditional newspapers publish op-eds and commentary sections, alongside their news sections. And plenty of traditional newspapers frequently update their online editions.
So even if this proposed bill were not a flagrant violation of the First Amendment, it would be really hard to draw a bright line between newspapers and bloggers, for the purpose of enforcement.
If enacted, the proposed law would likely be challenged in court on grounds that it violates First Amendment protections of freedom of speech and the press... Defending his bill, Brodeur said, "Paid bloggers are lobbyists who write instead of talk. They both are professional electioneers. If lobbyists have to register and report, why shouldn't paid bloggers?"
Truly captivating argument from the sponsor of the bill. Florida is so lucky to have him.
https://www.orlandosentinel.com/politics/os-ne-brodeur-semat...
> (c) The blogger must file reports with the appropriate office using the electronic filing system: 1. As provided in s. 11.0455 if the blog post concerns an elected member of the Legislature; or 2. As provided in s.32155 if the blog post concerns an officer of the executive branch. (d) The reports must include all of the following: 1. The individual or entity that compensated the blogger for the blog post. 2. The amount of compensation received from the individual or entity, regardless of how the compensation was structured. ...
Sorry for the poor formatting I'm on mobile. But if I'm reading this correctly I would be fine with forcing people that get paid by the government to have to publicly disclose that information. But once again, I have no idea if I'm reading it correctly.
So, if somebody pays you to write about the governor, you have to tell the government who paid you.
I think they're trying to allude to the way the FEC requires disclosures about who pays for campaign ads. But they don't require you to register anything, just to make disclaimers. And that applies to all candidates, not just the sitting officials.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35010784
Taken together, it sounds like neither one has a serious intention of passing. It's just a way for them to thump their chests.
> If you read the bill, this only applies to bloggers who are paid.
That's spelled out clearly in the fourth paragraph of the article.