6 ms·

Florida bill would make bloggers who write about governor register with state

53 points by barbazoo 4y ago

A_D_E_P_T 4y ago
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.
- User23 4y ago
  > 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. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doe_subpoena https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doe_subpoena
  - A_D_E_P_T 4y ago
    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.
- mywittyname 4y ago
  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.
dkjaudyeqooe 4y ago
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.
- TehCorwiz 4y ago
  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.
- engineer_22 4y ago
  This is a bill proposed by a legislator. This is not a law that has been passed by the governor.
  - bandyaboot 4y ago
    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.
BoiledCabbage 4y ago
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.
- bandyaboot 4y ago
  > 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.
- klyrs 4y ago
  I hold the same cynicism, but in the spirit of generous optimism, I'm looking forward to a FIRE lawsuit in defense of our civil liberties. Edit: oh good https://www.thefire.org/news/fire-statement-florida-senate-bill-1316 https://www.thefire.org/news/fire-statement-florida-senate-b...
- basch 4y ago
  Isn't this just state funded campaigning? They know the law wont go anywhere, but it's a win for commercial time. Really has nothing to do with speech at all, and everything to do with appearing anti woke. Posturing.
  - AlexandrB 4y ago
    How is getting bloggers to register with a govt. agency anti-woke?
jjulius 4y ago
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. [0]https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2023/1316/BillText/Filed/HTML https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2023/1316/BillText/Fil...
- quickthrowman 4y ago
  That changes absolutely nothing, it’s still ridiculous and unconstitutional. You have free speech rights even if you’re being paid.
  - jjulius 4y ago
    >That changes absolutely nothing... 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.
    - hyperpape 4y ago
      I admit, I'm surprised. I read your first post, and did not realize you were trying to criticize the law, rather than suggest it was less harmful.
laweijfmvo 4y ago
> DeSantis demanded new defamation law and this guy wants to be president
- mywittyname 4y ago
  Will likely be president.*
  - yamtaddle 4y ago
    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. :-/
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- engineer_22 4y ago
  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."
  - yamtaddle 4y ago
    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.
jawns 4y ago
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.
engineer_22 4y ago
-> 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.
- hackeraccount 4y ago
  Eh, as an argument against registering lobbyists it peeks my interest.
rmason 4y ago
This same guy wants to make it easier for people to sue the press for stories that they don't like: https://www.orlandosentinel.com/politics/os-ne-brodeur-semate-bill-defamation-20230302-52hgadv2ozedlcicdezeeaw5ru-story.html https://www.orlandosentinel.com/politics/os-ne-brodeur-semat...
pupppet 4y ago
Don’t worry guys. Musk, our championship of free speech is going to come out swinging against this any moment now!
_gabe_ 4y ago
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.
- jfengel 4y ago
  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.
  - _gabe_ 4y ago
    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.
    - jfengel 4y ago
      There is another HN article about a Florida bill to literally ban the Democratic party: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35010784 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.
newmanah223 4y ago
[flagged]
- klyrs 4y ago
  > Dishonest article but it's arstechnica so not surprising. > 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.
- badwolf 4y ago
  So is there freedom of the Press, or is there not?
greenyoda 4y ago
Discussion from yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35002690 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35002690
positron6000 4y ago
[dead]

53 points by barbazoo 4y ago

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.

User23 4y ago
> 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. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doe_subpoena https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doe_subpoena
- A_D_E_P_T 4y ago
  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.
mywittyname 4y ago
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.

dkjaudyeqooe 4y ago

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.

TehCorwiz 4y ago
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.
engineer_22 4y ago
This is a bill proposed by a legislator. This is not a law that has been passed by the governor.
- bandyaboot 4y ago
  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.

BoiledCabbage 4y ago

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.

bandyaboot 4y ago
> 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.
klyrs 4y ago
I hold the same cynicism, but in the spirit of generous optimism, I'm looking forward to a FIRE lawsuit in defense of our civil liberties. Edit: oh good https://www.thefire.org/news/fire-statement-florida-senate-bill-1316 https://www.thefire.org/news/fire-statement-florida-senate-b...
basch 4y ago
Isn't this just state funded campaigning? They know the law wont go anywhere, but it's a win for commercial time. Really has nothing to do with speech at all, and everything to do with appearing anti woke. Posturing.
- AlexandrB 4y ago
  How is getting bloggers to register with a govt. agency anti-woke?

jjulius 4y ago

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. [0]https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2023/1316/BillText/Filed/HTML https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2023/1316/BillText/Fil...

quickthrowman 4y ago
That changes absolutely nothing, it’s still ridiculous and unconstitutional. You have free speech rights even if you’re being paid.
- jjulius 4y ago
  >That changes absolutely nothing... 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.
  - hyperpape 4y ago
    I admit, I'm surprised. I read your first post, and did not realize you were trying to criticize the law, rather than suggest it was less harmful.

laweijfmvo 4y ago

> DeSantis demanded new defamation law and this guy wants to be president

mywittyname 4y ago
Will likely be president.*
- yamtaddle 4y ago
  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. :-/
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
engineer_22 4y ago
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."
- yamtaddle 4y ago
  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.

jawns 4y ago

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.

engineer_22 4y ago

-> 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.

hackeraccount 4y ago
Eh, as an argument against registering lobbyists it peeks my interest.

rmason 4y ago

This same guy wants to make it easier for people to sue the press for stories that they don't like: https://www.orlandosentinel.com/politics/os-ne-brodeur-semate-bill-defamation-20230302-52hgadv2ozedlcicdezeeaw5ru-story.html https://www.orlandosentinel.com/politics/os-ne-brodeur-semat...

pupppet 4y ago

Don’t worry guys. Musk, our championship of free speech is going to come out swinging against this any moment now!

_gabe_ 4y ago

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.

jfengel 4y ago
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.
- _gabe_ 4y ago
  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.
  - jfengel 4y ago
    There is another HN article about a Florida bill to literally ban the Democratic party: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35010784 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.

newmanah223 4y ago

[flagged]

klyrs 4y ago
> Dishonest article but it's arstechnica so not surprising. > 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.
badwolf 4y ago
So is there freedom of the Press, or is there not?

greenyoda 4y ago

Discussion from yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35002690 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35002690

positron6000 4y ago

[dead]