Flutterby™! : notes on the "SF wants to regulate blogging" thing

Next unread comment / Catchup all unread comments User Account Info | Logout | XML/Pilot/etc versions | Long version (with comments) | Weblog archives | Site Map | | Browse Topics

notes on the "SF wants to regulate blogging" thing

2005-04-05 14:47:45.989443+00 by Dan Lyke 3 comments

Larry asked if I'd seen this claim that San Francisco may regulate blogging. The city ordinance it refers to is about election spending, it's hard to excerpt any one bit of it, but:

The proposed legislation would regulate those communications often referred to as issue advocacy or electioneering communications by requiring persons who pay for such communications to: (1) identify themselves on the communication; and (2) file reports with the San Francisco Ethics Commission disclosing the costs of each communication and the names of any other persons who donated money for the communications.

And applies to those who'd spend more than $1000 on this in any calendar year. So, yes, another good example of why campaign finance reform laws are grease on the slippery slope, but not quite as alarmist as some would paint them.

[ related topics: Politics Weblogs Ethics Free Speech Bay Area ]

comments in ascending chronological order (reverse):

#Comment Re: made: 2005-04-05 17:05:29.4171+00 by: Dan Lyke

Chris Nolan provides some background on the San Francisco specific issues.

#Comment Re: made: 2005-04-05 17:13:06.938184+00 by: ziffle [edit history]

Amendment I

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.

'Congress shall make no law [... or] abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;'

Any and all restrictions to the contrary are unconstitutional, period.

Impeach Ginsberg!


#Comment Re: made: 2005-04-06 11:52:58.112154+00 by: petronius

So, a political opponent pays thousands and thousands to absolutely no effect, and the first impulse is to forbid him to piss away his money again. Works for me.

Also, as to the fact that the two councilmen under discussion being term-limited out of office in few years anyway: isn't this an old SF tradition? After she took over for martyred mayor Moscone, wasn't Diane Fienstein hit with an expensive recall election that she won less than a year before she would have had to stand again normally?