3 ms·

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 not

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.
    - jjulius 4y ago
      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. :)
  - quickthrowman 4y ago
    > 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”.
- junofan 4y ago
  Lobbyist registration has repeatedly held up against facial challenges. Why is this different?
  - quickthrowman 4y ago
    > “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’
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    Because its not lobbying the government, its political speech directed at the public by private entities, individual or corporate.
jawns 4y ago
"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.
BoiledCabbage 4y ago
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...
- jjulius 4y ago
  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...
  - foogazi 4y ago
    Why do we need to look at all your comments to draw conclusions from one comment 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-villages-oren-miller/ https://theintercept.com/2023/02/05/ron-desantis-florida-vil...
    - jjulius 4y ago
      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.
klyrs 4y ago
> Okay, there is a huge detail missing from Ars' report... No. There isn't. That's literally mentioned in the article. Fourth paragraph
- jjulius 4y ago
  Cool, my mistake. Still worth mentioning the distinction since it doesn't seem to be addressed anywhere else in this HN thread.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    Why should it be addressed in any way? How is it relevant to the Constitutional issues?
    - jjulius 4y ago
      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?

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.
  - jjulius 4y ago
    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. :)
- quickthrowman 4y ago
  > 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”.
junofan 4y ago
Lobbyist registration has repeatedly held up against facial challenges. Why is this different?
- quickthrowman 4y ago
  > “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’
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  Because its not lobbying the government, its political speech directed at the public by private entities, individual or corporate.

jawns 4y ago

"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.

BoiledCabbage 4y ago

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...

jjulius 4y ago
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...
- foogazi 4y ago
  Why do we need to look at all your comments to draw conclusions from one comment 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-villages-oren-miller/ https://theintercept.com/2023/02/05/ron-desantis-florida-vil...
  - jjulius 4y ago
    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.

klyrs 4y ago

> Okay, there is a huge detail missing from Ars' report... No. There isn't. That's literally mentioned in the article. Fourth paragraph

jjulius 4y ago
Cool, my mistake. Still worth mentioning the distinction since it doesn't seem to be addressed anywhere else in this HN thread.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  Why should it be addressed in any way? How is it relevant to the Constitutional issues?
  - jjulius 4y ago
    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?