How is this not a 1st amendmentr violation?

[Hawkmoon]

Florida bill to register bloggers

https://www.wfla.com/news/politics/florida-bill-would-require-bloggers-who-write-about-governor-to-register-with-the-state/

[zxcvbob]

Of course it's a 1A violation, everybody knows that.  They don't care; laws are presumed to be valid until someone challenges them, and you have to have standing to do that.  Nobody wants to be the test case so the obviously unconstitutional law still has a chilling effect.

This would be a good one for the ACLU.

[dogmush]

To be clear, I don't think this is a good law, and if it even makes it to a committee I will contact my Rep to ask them to oppose it.

But how is it a 1A violation?  It requires non journalists who get compensated for political writing to disclose who compensated them and how much.  It does not have any mechanism for shutting down or removing their speech.  It seems a heavy handed attempt to try and find out who is funding the piles of inaccurate or biased "articles" that show up every time DeSantis burps.

I'm not as well versed on 1A case law as I am on 2A, so if anyone has insight on some that this would violate, I'd be interested but it doesn't seem to me, on it's face, to be a 1A violation.

[charby]

This is why I hate it one when one party takes over a state/nation political process and gets all punch drunk with creation of laws.

Going through this in Iowa right now.

In the end most of gets killed in the courts, and it becomes a waste of time and money to appease the extremely loud fringes.

[K Frame]

Requiring people to register with the state and generate reports on blogging content or face a fine if they want to blog about a specific individual?

How is that NOT an assault on the First Amendment?

Notice also how this targets "bloggers..." not any/all who will or may receive pay for their writings.

This is nothing more than an attempt to chill opposition writing and is a modern-day version of the Alien & Sedition Act, fronted for the same reason -- because some whiny aholes don't like people poking them.

This reminds me of the attempt out of... Houston? a couple of years ago on the local level where, IIRC, the mayor attempted to chill religious speech by issuing supoenas demanding printed copies of sermons if they dealt with topics on homosexuality, and specifically if they mentioned the mayor's status as a crack snacker.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/city-of-houston-demands-pastors-turn-over-sermons

[cordex]

This is why I hate it one when one party takes over a state/nation political process and gets all punch drunk with creation of laws.

Yeah, you definitely hate it when one party does it.   

[Hawkmoon]

I wonder if the law would apply to a blogger in, say, Georgia or Alabama who posts blogs about Saint DeSantis.

[charby]

Yeah, you definitely hate it when one party does it.   

Either party for clarification.

[K Frame]

I wonder if the law would apply to a blogger in, say, Georgia or Alabama who posts blogs about Saint DeSantis.

I'd say it wouldn't. To be bound by Florida's laws, the state has to have jurisdiction over you. If you live in another state, Florida has no jurisdiction.

They could attempt to gain jurisdiction over you through an arrest warrant and an extradition request, but I think the chances of that actually succeeding would be minimal (actually I think the extradition request would be laughed out of the blogger's home state court). 

[dogmush]

Requiring people who get paid to blog about government officials to disclose who paid them and how much.

You can blog about the government all you want with no reports needed.

This law does not require a license to blog, it does not allow the state to approve or disprove content, it does not limit distribution of content in any way, nor does it allow for after the fact silencing.

It says "If someone pays you to write about the government figures in FL, you must disclose who paid you and how much."  I have already said that this is not my area of expertise, but there is some case law. Lewis Publishing v. Morgan  upheld that the Post Office could require disclosure of editors and owners names before allowing a Newspaper to use the mail. Barber v. Time upheld that the state must balance "Proper public interest and an individual's right to privacy".  The legislature has explicitly said that it feels it's in the public's interest to know who is funding non-newspaper, commercial, political speech.  In general the USSC has ruled back and forth on the 1A protections of commercial speech vs. just a citizen talking, and while current case law is that commercial speech is mostly protected under the 1A, it does stand apart as open to more regulation than the non-compensated speech of an individual citizen.

The Chilling effect doctrine does exist, and there were several cases in the McCarthy era that specifically held rules forcing commies to register or appear in person weren't constitutional, but chilling effect is not a blanket prohibition on all regulations.  The anti-war protesters in the 1970's found that out.  That case was about .gov surveillance (a passive chilling effect) rather than a requirement for an someone to act (file a report), so it's not a direct corollary, but it shows that there are exceptions made to the doctrine.

Again, if you have a specific part of this that you think automatically fails USSC scrutiny, I'd be interested in learning more case law, but on the face of it I don't see how requiring disclosure of who paid for a political article is ipso facto a 1A violation.

[cordex]

If Florida wants something like this, they might be able to get away with disclosure requirements.  I.e., "This post was partially financed by the following PACs ..."  That gets messy when it comes to a blog that is a mix between sponsored posts and personal opinions, of course. 

"The campaign funded this puff piece on their candidate.  The attack piece on your candidate was my personal opinion."

Regardless, registration, monthly reporting, $2,500 fine for each failure to file a monthly report, $25 late fees for late reports?  Definitely intended to have a chilling effect on free speech.  Big companies will build the infrastructure to handle that kind of reporting, and smaller bloggers who receive any sort of compensation for their blog (by my reading even running Google ads would qualify) will tend to avoid posting about state politicians to avoid the bureaucracy and paperwork.

This is a very bad, anti-1st-amendment bill.

That said, so far it's just a bill.  Lots of stupid and crazy bills get introduced by stupid and crazy politicians.

[dogmush]

Regardless, registration, monthly reporting, $2,500 fine for each failure to file a monthly report, $25 late fees for late reports?  Definitely intended to have a chilling effect on free speech.  Big companies will build the infrastructure to handle that kind of reporting, and smaller bloggers who receive any sort of compensation for their blog (by my reading even running Google ads would qualify) will tend to avoid posting about state politicians to avoid the bureaucracy and paperwork.

This is a very bad, anti-1st-amendment bill.

That said, so far it's just a bill.  Lots of stupid and crazy bills get introduced by stupid and crazy politicians.

I don't think just ads, or getting revenue for the website qualifies. 

(d) “Compensation” includes anything of value provided to a
150     blogger in exchange for a blog post or series of blog posts. If
151     not provided in currency, it must be the fair-market value of
152     the item or service exchanged.

You have to be paid for the post.  Ads pay you for views.  For this to kick in you would need to be paid for the specific post or posts.  Patreon may be a gray area though.  They are paying for content, so the posts, but not specifically the ones mentioning FL officials, so does that count?  Dunno.

In any case I agree it's a bad law, and likely is intended to unmask people who are paying for "grassroots" political activism so that the financers can be targeted or stopped.  The next tier of "Zuckerbucks" that have been all the rage for banning this year.  As a fan of limited government I've had to come to terms with the fact that there are lots of bad laws the Courts say pass Constitutional muster, some of which are probably even Constitutional despite being bad for the goal of a limited government.

Hawkmoon's question was "How is this not a 1A violation?"  I read the bill, noticed it didn't actually say what the news story implied it did (imagine my shock) and provided some theories and case law that may lead the Rep to think this would pass muster with the courts.  Really the chilling effect is going to be the stickler, and as I pointed out the courts have allowed regulations with a chilling effect in the past.  The argument made by the legislature that there is a lot of out of state funding coming into the state to try and manipulate FL politics in ways that are not the will of, or beneficial to, FL residents is not, in fact, completely without merit.  This law is relatively narrowly tailored to address that specific concern.  I have no idea how the courts would rule on this, but that's the answer to "how is this not a 1A violation?".  There are court cases where it was found the chilling effect on speech was outweighed by the public interest the law served.

[cordex]

I don't think just ads, or getting revenue for the website qualifies. 

You have to be paid for the post.  Ads pay you for views.  For this to kick in you would need to be paid for the specific post or posts.  Patreon may be a gray area though.  They are paying for content, so the posts, but not specifically the ones mentioning FL officials, so does that count?  Dunno.

A literal reading - or a malicious reading by the enforcers of this law - could easily be argued to apply to any post for which the writer receives payment.  Of course, if you say ad payments don't count or that per-view payments don't count, then that leaves an astoundingly large loophole for people to restructure their payments to avoid the law.

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 identified in paragraph (1)(f), within 5 days after the first post by the blogger which mentions an elected state officer.

[Hawkmoon]

Requiring people who get paid to blog about government officials to disclose who paid them and how much.

You can blog about the government all you want with no reports needed.

Most bloggers don't get paid ... in the sense of drawing a salary or having a consulting contract. They may receive income from monetizing their blog channel, and the way I understand it, that's who this law would apply to. If I'm correct in that interpretation, then I do believe the law would violate the 1st amendment. If it only applies to people blogging under contract to someone else, then perhaps not a violation.

[RoadKingLarry]

A literal reading - or a malicious reading by the enforcers of this law - could easily be argued to apply to any post for which the writer receives payment.  Of course, if you say ad payments don't count or that per-view payments don't count, then that leaves an astoundingly large loophole for people to restructure their payments to avoid the law.

ALWAYS read any proposed law with the worst possible intent, interpretation and implementation you can imagine.

[dogmush]

Most bloggers don't get paid ... in the sense of drawing a salaray or having a consulting contract. They may receive income from monetizing their blog channel, and the way I understand it, that's who this law would apply to. If I'm correct in that interpretation, then I do believe the law would violate the 1st amendment. If it only applies to people blogging under contract to someone else, then perhaps not a violation.

That belief is the entire reason this bill was drafted.  Apparently there are a not insignificant number of bloggers who will take commissions to churn out posts. The whole "Zuckerbucks' kerfuffle was about exactly that, the commissioning of large numbers of seemingly organic political opinion pieces.

I posted the definition of "compensation" as written in this bill above.  It requires something of value exchanged for a blog post.  That's why I said I didn't think it covers ads.  Ads, and most other website monetization schemes, pay you for traffic on your site. The compensation ads get you is not linked to whether or not you published a blog post, but rather solely to the site traffic.

That does not meet the requirements of this bill for registration and reporting.

[zxcvbob]

That belief is the entire reason this bill was drafted.  Apparently there are a not insignificant number of bloggers who will take commissions to churn out posts. The whole "Zuckerbucks' kerfuffle was about exactly that, the commissioning of large numbers of seemingly organic political opinion pieces.

I posted the definition of "compensation" as written in this bill above.  It requires something of value exchanged for a blog post.  That's why I said I didn't think it covers ads.  Ads, and most other website monetization schemes, pay you for traffic on your site. The compensation ads get you is not linked to whether or not you published a blog post, but rather solely to the site traffic.

That does not meet the requirements of this bill for registration and reporting.

Is failure to register a civil infraction or criminal?  Because what I see happening is this law being used as an excuse to arrest anyone who writes a blog critical of some political leader or another.  Writing anything bad about Dear Leader is probable cause that someone paid you to do it. 

I've not read the bill, I just know how the world works.  Police will arrest you for crimes that exist only in their imaginations and you spend the weekend in jail waiting to see the judge.  (this has not actually happened to me yet.  I keep a low profile and/or have been lucky)  If it's a civil matter, it's not quite so bad.

[MechAg94]

I assume this hasn't been voted out of committee yet in their legislature?  It will probably get changed or not go anywhere. 

I like the idea of just requiring disclosure for paid content.  ..that is if anything is passed at all.  That said, it could end up like the "don't say gay" bill that was actually a child protection law.

[DittoHead]

Apparently there are a not insignificant number of bloggers who will take commissions to churn out posts. The whole "Zuckerbucks' kerfuffle was about exactly that, the commissioning of large numbers of seemingly organic political opinion pieces.

The "Zuckerbucks' kerfuffle, as I know it, was about funding local election offices
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/what-are-zuckerbucks-and-why-are-they-controversial/
Not about blogging.

[dogmush]

The "Zuckerbucks' kerfuffle, as I know it, was about funding local election offices
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/what-are-zuckerbucks-and-why-are-they-controversial/
Not about blogging.

I may be mistaken, but I remember seeing DeSantis speechify about how he saved us from Zuckerbucks in the context of undisclosed online advertising/advocacy.

But I generally tune his speeches out about halfway through.

[HankB]

. . . Police will arrest you for crimes that exist only in their imaginations and you spend the weekend in jail waiting to see the judge . . .

If you're prone to ruffling political feathers, this sort of thing would make it seem that Friday would be a good day to be absent from your usual haunts. And to have a lawyer on speed dial.

[Perd Hapley]

I don't know if there was any evidence DeSantis supported the bill, but he's now come out against it. I liked this comment:

    Media Then: "Fascist DeSantis wants bloggers to register, JUST LIKE HITLER."
    Media Now (probably): "Dictator DeSantis ignoring his own legislature, won't even listen to their ideas, JUST LIKE HITLER."

    — Jurisprudent🇺🇸 (@The_Law_Suit) March 7, 2023

https://twitchy.com/sarahd-313035/2023/03/07/ron-desantis-remarks-on-blogger-bill-shatter-yet-another-breathless-bs-media-narrative-about-him/