San Francisco May Regulate Blogging

[Walt Starr]

San Francisco May Regulate Blogging
By Michael Bassik, 03/31/2005 - 3:15pm


Just when you thought the Federal Election Commission had it out for the blogosphere, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors took it up a notch and announced yesterday that it will soon vote on a city ordinance that would require local bloggers to register with the city Ethics Commission and report all blog-related costs that exceed $1,000 in the aggregate.

Blogs that mention candidates for local office that receive more than 500 hits will be forced to pay a registration fee and will be subject to website traffic audits, according to Chad Jacobs, a San Francisco City Attorney.

<snip>

http://www.personaldemocracy.com/node/501

I don't care what side of the political spectrum decides to do this. Regulation of speech is wrong, despotic, and unconstitutional.

[tx_dem41]

1. This is definitely wrong. I wonder what authority they will cite...

when trying to collect a registration fee from a blogger who lives halfway around the world.

[htuttle]

2. Well, this is impossible to enforce

Say I don't live in San Francisco, but have a stake in the outcome of city elections. How are they going to regulate my blog when I'm in Wisconsin (or better yet, Russia or Germany)?

Laws that can't be enforced are stupid laws. Not to mention the free speech implications of it.

[Redstone]

3. I heard that people in San Francisco used a lot of drugs,

now I know it must be true.

Redstone

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

15. And this proposed law would be ignored...

...just like the drug laws :)

[displacedtexan]

4. Each mouse click = a local phone call.

Unless they're prepared to regulate each and every local phone call which might involve political conversation, I don't believe this registration of blogs crap will stand.

BTW, I've had over 90,000 hits on my free blogger.com blog (link is under the burning bush) since I started last May 26th. How much would I owe if I lived in SF?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

12. that doesn't appear to be the case

>Unless they're prepared to regulate each and every local phone call
>which might involve political conversation, I don't believe this
>registration of blogs crap will stand.

The legislation appears to specifically exclude that type of communication, and deals only in paid communication. You're free to editorialize on your blog all day long without reporting anything. It's only when a campaign starts paying for it that the rules come into force.

>BTW, I've had over 90,000 hits on my free blogger.com blog (link is
>under the burning bush) since I started last May 26th. How much would I
> owe if I lived in SF?

Nothing, unless you're getting paid by someone to do it for political purposes.

[ignatzmouse]

5. 3-31-05 April Fools Joke? (n/t)

[Walt Starr]

9. Nope, it's REAL!

Unbelieveable, huh?

IF these are Democrats doing this, they should be drummed out of the party. This is nothing short of auythoritarian despotism I'd expect from a Republican!

[wookie294]

6. Idiotic law

We already have an election system that requires candidates to report where their money is spent, meaning everybody will know which bloggers are working for a candidate. So, we don't need to require bloggers to register or report how they conduct their activities.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

7. Hmm...

That's not my reading of the ordinance.

It is with respect to communications that are paid for by a political campaign. They will be required, just like TV, to state who paid for it.

It specifically exclusdes any communication which is not paid for by a candidate.

In other words, it's just applying disclosure rules to a broader array of paid-for political communication.

[Walt Starr]

11. You still have to register under their stupid law

You only pay if your paid by a campaign.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

13. Perhaps I missed that bit.

Given the quality of the PDF, it's difficult to make bits out. Can you reference the section that discusses this?

Thanks.

[LeftCoast]

8. Strange, Sophie Maxwell doesn't usually sponsor wacked-out legislation

I doubt this will go anywhere, but it just adds to the old 'crazy SF' myth. :)

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

10. It actually doesn't appear that whacked-out if you read it.

It's mostly just applying the same "paid for by such-and-such" to electronic media and brodaning the definition in a few other ways (most of which look pretty standard with respect to other municipalities)

[izzybeans]

14. I'm all for regulation that fosters open sourcing and anti-libel practices

I don't find anything unconstitutional about demanding a bit of accountability. Every other profession is accountable to an ethics board that dictates best practices. No political ideology should fear that as an infringement upon free speech unless they are lieing about the people and events they are discussing.

I'm not clear what this ordinance does besides make it easier for bloggers to make money buy charging subscription fees and the like. I doubt San Fran. will use such a thing to "track" blogger activities. It sounds like a way to institutionalize profit making mechanisms to me. For that I'd predict the bloggers would be thankful.

[HereSince1628]

16. One thing is certainly clear...the establishment fears the grassroots

Don't you think that the interstate commerce clause will quickly become involved as bloggers and blog readers are likely to be beyond the city, county and state's borders? Consequently, it will quickly become an issue headed for federal court.

I might be wrong, but I think the commerce clause will require that all equivalent activities be treated the same.

If making your political viewpoint on a local candidate public where 500 people see it is the criteria, the folks in SF Ethics Commission need to show that this treatment of bloggers is not different from the treatment of newspapers with more than 500 readers that "mention candidates for local office," talk/call-in radio, organizations that pass out hand bills on street corners, or those that do bulk mailings, including union/professional association newsletters/newspapers that mention candidates.

Moreover, the ordinance will have to be distinguish the individual free speech of blogging as distinct from yard signs, bumper stickers, and lapel buttons where more than 500 people see them.

The government may be able to argue an interest in assuring that blogs are not used as a means to circumvent legitimate campaign regulations. It is imaginable that a candidate could hide organized campaign activities by using seemingly private blogs as "fronts" for a campaign.

[Mr.Green93]

17. Web Logs could

be called the 'assault weapons' of free speech. Maybe they do bear closer scrutiny.