Florida bill would require bloggers who write about the governor and legislators to register with the state

[Athanasius68]

So this law only covers paid bloggers?

It's not a law. It's not even legislation that will be voted upon.

 

[Hamish Howl]

It's not a law. It's not even legislation that will be voted upon.

Link in the OP says otherwise.

 

[Athanasius68]

Link in the OP says otherwise.

The first sentence in the OP says it's not the law

 

[Hamish Howl]

The first sentence in the OP says it's not the law

"A Republican state senator in Florida has introduced a bill that, if passed, would require bloggers who write about Gov. Ron DeSantis, his Cabinet or state legislators to register with the state."

You said

It's not a law. It's not even legislation that will be voted upon.

It in fact is.

 

[Gaius46]

A lobbyists has free speech rights as well.

Different issue. Lobbyists are paid to talk to government officials to get them to do things for the lobbyists' clients. The government works for we the people and we the people cannot judge whether our elected officials are doing their jobs for us if we don't know that lobbyists are talking to them.

The free speech issue with registering bloggers is that it can reasonably been seen to stifle their speech. It is apples and. oranges.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

The difference is that journalists operate under a system of professional ethics generally enforced by the publication they are writing for. They’re paid by the press entity they work for. They aren’t free-range commentators secretly funded by dark money.

You mean "dark money" like in PACs?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

One guy needs to register in order to be paid to talk.

One guy (under the proposal by this one legislator) needs to register after being paid to write.

You seem to have missed the distinction between "was paid to" and "received money as a result of".

In the first instance, the writer would have to actually be in an "employer/employee" relationship with someone else.

In the second instance, all that would be required would be that the writer have paid advertising of the "pay per click" nature on their site.

 

[MauiMan]

This can’t be legal.

It isn’t.

 

[Athanasius68]

You seem to have missed the distinction between "was paid to" and "received money as a result of".

In the first instance, the writer would have to actually be in an "employer/employee" relationship with someone else.

In the second instance, all that would be required would be that the writer have paid advertising of the "pay per click" nature on their site.

Ok-- so again-- is your objection here to the details as to how the bill is presently written by this lone rep?
Or is it to the concept of the bill?

 

[Slartibartfast]

Different issue. Lobbyists are paid to talk to government officials to get them to do things for the lobbyists' clients. The government works for we the people and we the people cannot judge whether our elected officials are doing their jobs for us if we don't know that lobbyists are talking to them.

The free speech issue with registering bloggers is that it can reasonably been seen to stifle their speech. It is apples and. oranges.

Pretty much this. There is no equivalency between lobbyists and bloggers.

 

[jonny5]

I have nothing to say. I leave you only with this image.

Stop making posts with no content. This is a DEBATE FORUM.

As to the topic, since its florida related, we have to assume its misrepresented until proven otherwise. And this one is misrepresented. It does not 'require bloggers to register' . It require bloggers who get paid to write about the govt to register as lobbyists. And its just one guy, and its dumb and will go nowhere.

"“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?”"

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Ok-- so again-- is your objection here to the details as to how the bill is presently written by this lone rep?
Or is it to the concept of the bill?

Both.

The drafting is incredibly sloppy and the (not specifically expressed, but pretty damn obvious) intent is abhorrent.

 

[Napoleon]

You mean "dark money" like in PACs?

Dark money as in we don’t know who it is because they’re currently allowed to do this anonymously. But yes, PACs are a good example. The bill applies to bloggers name-dropping elected officials. So it would be good to know if the blogger was paid to savage Rep. Joe Nobody by a PAC supporting his political opponent and if there are potential violations of finance laws.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Nope

Curious. To what "press" do you think the first amendment refers?

 

[Grizzly Adams]

People engaged in commerce are not compelled to associate with people they do not wish to serve. The government cannot compel you to associate with anyone. Everyone has a constitutional right to refuse to associate with anyone they do not wish to associate with within the confines of the law.

The constitution simply does not guarantee anyone the right to own their own business on their own terms. That is regulated by the government, and the requirement that a business be open to the public and serve all members of the public without arbitrary discrimination is not in any way unconstitutional. If you want to exercise your constitutionally protected right to simply not associate with a particular demographic, you are free to not engage in commerce.

Executive summary: you have all your rights unless you actually want to survive.

 

[Plasmaball]

Curious. To what "press" do you think the first amendment refers?

Freedom of speech also means the written word. Doesn't need to be about the press.
Any artist would know this.
Any one who writes stories would know this.

 

[mrjurrs]

Stalin would have loved this!

 

[lwf]

Executive summary: you have all your rights unless you actually want to survive.

Most Americans do not own their own business, and yet they have no problem surviving. Rights necessarily require that one person's rights cannot outweigh the rights of those you they do not want to associate with.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Freedom of speech also means the written word. Doesn't need to be about the press.

But the first amendment makes it about "the press." What do you think that is? An empty word?

Any artist would know this.
Any one who writes stories would know this.

I'm not asking what "any artist" or "anyone who writes stories" would know. I'm asking what you think the first amendment means when it protects the freedom of the press.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Most Americans do not own their own business, and yet they have no problem surviving. Rights necessarily require that one person's rights cannot outweigh the rights of those you they do not want to associate with.

Exactly my point. You have a right to freely associate (or not associate) with whomever you choose, unless that person wants to eat a hamburger you sell. Then, their "right" to a hamburger trumps your right to not associate with them. All glory to the right to a hamburger!

 

[Plasmaball]

But the first amendment makes it about "the press." What do you think that is? An empty word?


I'm not asking what "any artist" or "anyone who writes stories" would know. I'm asking what you think the first amendment means when it protects the freedom of the press.

But it matters.. its just as important as the press.

 

[lwf]

Exactly my point. You have a right to freely associate (or not associate) with whomever you choose, unless that person wants to eat a hamburger you sell. Then, their "right" to a hamburger trumps your right to not associate with them. All glory to the right to a hamburger!

No, you still have that right not to associate with them. What you don't have a right to do is to own and run your own business however you want. The government regulates commerce in the United States.

You are confusing having a right to associate with whomever you want to being entitled to run your own business. You are not entitled to own and run your own business. The government doesn't owe you a business. You still have a right to associate with whomever you want.

 

[Napoleon]

But it matters.. its just as important as the press.

This is about commissioned speech. The first amendment doesn’t entitle anyone to anonymity in paying a third party to speak.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

But it matters.. its just as important as the press.

What? My premise is that freedom of speech protects the spoken word, while freedom of the press protects the written word. You disagree, and state that freedom of speech protects both the written and spoken word. What, then, does freedom of the press protect, in your opinion? Can you answer this simple question or not?

 

[Grizzly Adams]

No, you still have that right not to associate with them. What you don't have a right to do is to own and run your own business however you want. The government regulates commerce in the United States.

You are confusing having a right to associate with whomever you want to being entitled to run your own business. You are not entitled to own and run your own business. The government doesn't owe you a business. You still have a right to associate with whomever you want.

No one is claiming the government owes anyone a business.

You are simply reaffirming what you've already stated: you have rights until the government says you don't (i.e., when you engage in commerce). I can't figure out why it's a foregone conclusion that a paid blogger, who is engaging in commerce, is absolutely protected under the first amendment based on the exceptions you've just stated.