Slashdot Mirror


San Francisco Attempts to Regulate Blogging

Lawrence Person writes "Forget about theocratic Iran or Communist China; today's report of a political entity trying to regulate blogging comes not from The People's Republic of China, but rather The People's Republic of San Francisco. 'The San Francisco Board of Supervisors [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." Worse, this is not an April Fools joke. It seems that 'campaign finance reform' is turning out to be the biggest Trojan Horse in the campaign to regulate free speech. "Are you now or have you ever been a blogger?"" Chris Nolan -- the "not a joke" link above -- is more reserved about the true scope of the proposed law (which would deal with election-related journaling specifically, not most diary-style Web journals), but has little good to say about it.

4 of 650 comments (clear)

  1. totally outrageous.... by zappepcs · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I don't care what people blog about, there is nothing in a blog that merits regulation or taxation. In the US, speech and its expression are free... period.

    A blog, by definition, is not a public broadcasting medium. It is in the public, but is not a public source of information. Should a politically active person stand on a street corner and shout out their belief and political affiliation, it is not a public broadcast medium.

    This is EXACTLY the kind of crap that artificially inflates the value of one political party above another in the eye of the public at large.

    ALL, and I mean EVERY LAST ONE of them, all political messages should be broadcast freely to ALL Americans, young and old, till every American, of voting age or not, is sick to fscking death of them, and well informed on how each party, local or national, stands on every issue. When they abuse their rights to speak freely, there will come a time that it is no longer valuable to them to speak in public except in a morally appropriate manner.

    The attempt to regulate even a small part of that process is both assinine and totally irreverant to your, and my, rights as citizens.

    To do this among a small electorate (read not nationwide) only goes to ensure that only the people with money will get access to the public.... This is TOTAL BS

    If you live in SF and this gets passed, I heartily recommend you leave there, pack your bags and go. I'd do that anyway... but especially if they pass this infringement of your rights to hear and be heard.

  2. Re:Not suprising given the recent court ruling by amliebsch · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Saddam also has the irritating characteristic of not being dead yet.

    --
    If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
  3. Re:Not suprising given the recent court ruling by birge · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Well said, except for you first paragraph being a prime example of what you chastice. You demonstrate my point by suggesting that it's ok to own a handgun but not an "assault" rifle, the loaded and meaningless term used by the anti-gun lobby to refer to pretty much any gun which isn't a bolt action hunting rifle. I'm glad we have people like you to decide what constitutes a sufficient weapon for the little people like me to own. It's naive to think a law is going to make a difference in your safety anyway, and small-minded to attempt to outlaw potential instead of actual misbehavior.

    I have no doubt that you are just trying to improve your and my society. So is everybody. If you were able to manage to do so without resorting to forcable coersion of lawful people, I would appreciate it. This applies to both liberals and conservatives these days, so I'm not picking sides: I generally can't stand either one and find it at least a satisfying irony that the two sides which hate each other so much are really the same: they just differ in their own particular zealotry and agenda which they wish to universally impose. There's really nobody left who remembers the point of the US was originally to allow people to find their own way minimally hindered, so long as they didn't interfere with others doing the same.

  4. Re:Not suprising given the recent court ruling by birge · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    What? I've never met a single leftist who would deny the right of another person to defend herself with a weapon.



    Well, then try to get a carry permit in certain cities in California.