There is a deeply disturbing legislative proposal in Florida where Sen. Jason Brodeur of Lake Mary has called for bloggers to register with the state if they want to write about the state’s governor, lieutenant governor, cabinet members or legislative officials. It is a highly intrusive, dangerous, and presumptively unconstitutional effort. Yet, it is also important to note that this is just a proposal from a single legislator with little real chance of passage. What I find interesting is the historical underpinnings of such a law. The comparison is not favorable for Sen. Brodeur.
The bill would require bloggers to file periodic reports with the state if they are paid for posts about the state’s governor, lieutenant governor, cabinet members or legislative officials. They could be fined $25 for each day the report is late, up to a maximum of $2,500 for each report. The legislation would exempt content on “the website of a newspaper or other similar publication.”
It is a vague and unnecessary law. In a Twitter post, Brodeur explained that he simply wants to bring greater transparency to blogs that advocate or lobby for specific causes. He notes that it is directed at those who are paid to write about elected officials in Florida.
In fairness to Sen. Brodeur, there are requirements for media to obtain press credentials to get full access to press areas in the federal or state capitals. However, the requirements are minimal and press can always cover events without such credentials by using public access.
Moreover, bloggers cover a wide range of speech and speakers. Blogs are part of the new media with a wide array of people covering or opining on contemporary events. It can range from the popular “citizen journalist” to minor “influencers” to satirical writers. Many blogs are now quite large and rival traditional newspapers or media outlets. They are a new and critical component in our free speech community. Many look to blogs as an alternative to what they see as a biased mainstream media.
I understand Brodeur’s motivation and his concern for bloggers who hide paid agendas or serve as surrogates for others. However, this is a really bad idea and it is not a new idea.
At the creation of our Republic, free press advocates like Thomas Paine were focused on state licensing laws that were abused in England by the Crown to control the media.
The licensing laws became a rallying cause in 1644 for many after John Milton wrote his famous pamphlet Areopagitica. Milton objected to the requirement of prior licensing of writers with the Crown, objecting that “debtors and delinquents may walk abroad without a keeper, but unoffensive books must not stir forth without a visible jailer in their title.” The licensing law ended in 1694. It was a defining moment of press freedom in fighting the need to secure permission to publish. Figures like Thomas Paine wrote against prior restraints and licensing systems as the core threats to free speech and the free press.
The Florida proposal would return us to mandatory licensing or registry as a prerequisite for free speech or the free press. I have no reason to assume that Sen. Brodeur has nefarious or authoritarian motives in this ill-conceived effort. However, he is on the wrong side of history in proposing a registry and should withdraw his bill.
There is no reason to believe this is a single Republican outlier, that isn’t how my state of Florida generally works. Bills introduced by Republicans generally have the consent of leadership in the Republican-controlled legislature. The legislature tried once to draw their own redistrictricting plan before DeSantis slapped them down and imposed his more gerrymandered districts on the state. They haven’t tried to stand up to him since. DeSantis could have easily said the bill was unconstitutional, instead he waited several days before issuing a statement that he’d wait and see what the legislature did with it. It is also interesting that nowhere in the language of the bill any restriction to Florida-based bloggers, Anybody in the world that writes about DeSantis and makes a dime would have to register with the State and face fines for not doing so.
My response thus far has been to write about DeSantis every day (sometimes twice). I do fall into the category of those who get paid to write though by individual readers and not George Soros or the DNC aas some commenters foolishly believe. There are currently bills in the legislature to cancel the Democratic Party for once having supported slavery (so did Republicans though they were staunchly against the expansion of slavery). Another bill would ban abortion after 6-weeks though almost no women know they’re pregnant that early. Then there’s the permitless open carry with no training or education. Turley can lead you to believe all these Republicans are acting independently without the Governor’s knowledge. These bills are being advanced the same way as DeSantis’s “Don’t Say Gay,” and “Anti-Woke” bills, with a single republican introducing a bill. It’s far more likely it’s the pre=planned DeSantis Agenda being introduced, otherwise it would have already been squashed.
And that is why he is wildly popular and why cowardly bloggers who don’t like him and post BS about him are afraid of libel suits if they have to come to the light.
Posting libelous propaganda should be illegal and getting paid for it is shameful.
He’s only popular among those who haven’t yet figured out when DeSantis says “freedom” he really means the other thing. There;s no need to slander/libel DeSantis when the truth is sufficient.
What “other thing” is it that DeSantis means ?
What evidence do you have ?
Aparently the people of Florida are incredibly happy with him and with Republicans.
That sounds like Freedom to me.
He even managed to get 58% of the Hispanic vote.
JT being one-sided in his defense of free speech, does he recognize how the Sullivan and Citizens United decisions, combined with “anyone can publish” tech, has allowed candidates for office and officeholders to be routinely defamed — often anonymously. Ad-hominem deceitful infowarfare is scaring away 90+% of the high achievers in America from seeking elective office. The character assassinations are not limited to the candidate, but sometimes directed at family members. Who would want to expose their family to such an unregulated onslaught of mendacious oppo-branding?
So, there is an important tradeoff between the quality and fullness of the leadership pipeline, and the freedom to attack candidates and office-holders with public-fraud inforwarfare-campaigns — from a totally protected zone of anonymity, financial opaqueness and concealment of purpose. Is that what you want, JT?
The fact that we have such lousy national leadership choices is a reflection of how constricted that pipeline has become in the age of disinformation.
The last time I read the 1st Amendment, it is silent about personal accountability for defamation, because at the time of its writing, defamation was deterred through the honorific culture of dueling. If you just keep weakening deterrents to defamation, your society will end up in a cesspool of corruption led by psychopathic personality types — because those types are wired up not sensitive to criticism. They are the ones that honed the craft of attacking others from an early age.
I favor personal accountability for the civility of published writings and speech. Otherwise, you can kiss civility goodbye, and with it, the capacity for decent leadership and good government. Hard choice?
It is deeply disturbing. It has nothing to do with DeSantis, or Florida at large. This is quite literally *one* f*****d up representative with ideas that are so misguided it is difficult to contemplate, even though in their own minds they probably had good intentions. F***** beyond belief. We are indeed better than this, it will not pass, but the MSM will spin it to the skies and ignore all of that feet on the ground fact to serve a narrative for their fascist regime. That is all the brain dead will absorb through NPR et. al (a whole lot of people think NPR or PBS are beyond reproach because they are grassroots, but believing that in the 21st century tells you automatically how out of touch they are). Decide that you own your own brain again. Liberals, Conservatives, Independents (like me, lifelong); just take possession of your own faculties again. This may involve locking up your phone for the productive twelve hours you likely have a day, and feeling imaginary feelings of discomfort that have no bearing on your actual life or its well-being or progress whatsoever. We did this to ourselves with great zest and zeal. We can undo it with a similar passion, if we actually care.
So they find one guy on the right who is proposing control of speech while at the same time ignoring Democrats who say that even more censorship should be imposed by social media. You can plainly see their antennae twitching furiously looking for any hypocrisy on the right. Is it a blog or a political action committee? Political action committees are required to register as such. I can remember when they jumped all in with the Never Trumpers when they found it convenient. Now they say oh look here’s a guy on the right who is calling for censorship as they ignore left wing politicians who stand on the floor of the House of Representatives calling for even more limitation of what you can say and hear. https://thehill.com/opinion/civil-rights/495788-the-dangerous-liberal-ideas-for-censorship-in-the-united-states/. Very rich indeed.
It’s not “one guy”. It’s a Republican who proposed a bill. In Florida such proposals are first vetted by party leaders before being made public. It’s consistent with the rest of Florida’s republicans ideals. They want to shut down those whose ideas they don’t like.
Do you know what you are talking about? Absolutely not. This bill will not pass.
Paid bloggers, a.k.a. “influencers”, presumably to close a loophole for lobbyists to influence or steer executive and legislative choices.
Jonathan: You say don’t see any “nefarious or authoritarian motives” behind Sen. Brodeu’s proposal to require bloggers who write about Gov. DeSantis to register with the state or face fines. I disagree. What you neglect to mention is that Brodeu has also proposed legislation to eliminate the NY Times v. Sullivan standard for defamation lawsuits. Mere negligence would suffice. That is a direct attack on press freedom. You also don’t mention that Brodeu’s proposals come right after Gov. DeSantis held a roundtable of right-wing activists in which he pushed to weaken journalist protections. Brodeu’s proposals come directly out of that roundtable.
DeSantis has had a long running battle with the press. He refuses to conduct press interviews except on Fox. His former press secretary, Christina Pushaw, openly fought with the press. She called the Washington Post “the Pravda of DC”. and President Biden “a seemingly senile 79-year-old aspiring dictator”. Pushaw also used antisemitic tropes. Her incendiary tweets and retweets prompted Twitter (under the former ownership) to suspend her account for “abusive” behavior.
It’s pretty clear DeSantis urged Brodeu’s proposals because his goal is to overturn NY Times v. Sullivan so he can pursue his 2024 presidential bid without press scrutiny. He is an authoritarian–in the mold of Erdogon in Turkey. I think you have greatly underestimated the danger of the Brodeu/ DeSantis proposals. Trump relentlessly attacked the press–even suing newspapers for articles he did not like. You were pretty silent when Trump attacked the press. DeSantis is trying to appeal to appeal to Trump’s MAGA supporters by going hard right against the press. That’s not only an attack on journalists but on all our freedoms.
Unlike the Democrats on this blog, I don’t look at party affiliations, but I look at what people say and do. I wouldn’t support Brodeur if he kept such a position. But Democrats will take a scoundrel like Adam Schiff and push him to higher office.
There is no morality in blind support of the Democrat Party.
Brodeur’s motivations are understandable but not acceptable.
“Unlike the Democrats on this blog, I don’t look at party affiliations, but I look at what people say and do.”
LOL! BS. You call out democrats (leftists) all the time. You judge everything according to what democrats do or say. The least you can do is be honest about THAT.
When you act in lockstep with stupidity, you become part of the stupid Borg mentality. When Democrats act intelligently I have no problem agreeing. When Republicans act badly like Brodeur I stand apart. I have frequently stated my dislike for many Republicans and my disagreements with the party. You are like the Borg where information doesn’t even enter the brain. You have no knowledge of policy and stand fast to whatever left-wing sites tell you.
I’d like to know more about this Brodeur fellow. What kind of Republican is he really? See, it seems to me that this is such a bad idea and so offensive to many opinion shapers on the conservative side that I suspect that it was intended to look awful. Is Brodeur a RINO (Jeb!) or a super ultra MAGA (Trump) type Republican? I have already seen this proposal used by an influential super ultra MAGA blogger to discredit DeSantis. We are getting into primary season. The games are beginning. Question everything.
Desantis is of the same mindset. This is why this senator is comfortably proposing this law. DeSantis has passed the anti-woke act that prohibits private companies from discussing or talking about DEI or CRT or anything related to “wokeness”. That’s anti-free speech.
A Democrat operative would say.
+1
No Hullbobby, that’s what a republican would say. Keep up man.
Show us how DeSantis is of the same mindset. You might try but you will fail demonstrating again you have nothing worthwhile to say.
It’s hilarious how Turley leaves out the legislator’s party affiliation. He never forgets to let everyone know when a legislator is a democrat an proposes legislation he sees as “problematic”.
This is a Republican legislator proposing an attack on free speech. It’s pretty rich how Turley tries to treat this with kids gloves while being “concerned” about the proposed legislation. Never mind that’s been a common idea among Republicans in Florida that they are all for censoring speech they don’t like. That’s where these anti-woke laws are for. Restraining ideas they don’t like by criminalizing or punishing those who express them. This legislation is part of that overall narrative Governor DeSantis is playing to his constituents.
Bodeur’s motivation is clear, he wants to censor those who criticize the governor or the legislature because they don’t like it. The whole purpose of the proposed legislation is to scare any potential critics of the republican Governor or republican legislators. That’s what authoritarians do when they are in power. Turley is being a bit naive about this legislator’s intentions.
Svelaz wrote, “It’s hilarious how Turley leaves out the legislator’s party affiliation. He never forgets to let everyone know when a legislator is a democrat an proposes legislation he sees as “problematic”.”
Talk about an ad hominem attack the messenger deflection that’s totally unfair, holy cow Svelaz what a freaking hack you are! Your bias is making you stupid Svelaz. Go through Turley’s posts over the last few months (I just did that) and you’ll find that he is inconsistent at listing party affiliation across the board, there is absolutely nothing partisan about what he’s doing.
When I think about this kind of issue, I personally think I’d prefer that party affiliation either always be listed or never be listed and off-hand I couldn’t tell you which way I do it or if I’m consistent but I’m going to check.
My first scan of my blog indicates that I don’t use party affiliation of politicians when typing their names and positions, which is probably the best choice if a blogger is going to choose to be consistent. I’ll keep scanning my blog to check further.
At least you ARE consistent and that is a respectable principle to adhere to.
Witherspoon, your triggered responses are hilarious. First of all it IS relevant how Turley portrays this. If this were a democrat legislator proposing this law. It’s guaranteed Turley would have made sure to emphasize that he was a democrat. He does this on all of his columns when he’s criticizing democrat legislators. In this column he omits the legislator’s party affiliation to avoid alienating his readers because criticizing Republican can bring consequences. He’s biased and it’s obvious.
“Go through Turley’s posts over the last few months (I just did that) and you’ll find that he is inconsistent at listing party affiliation across the board, there is absolutely nothing partisan about what he’s doing.”
Here you literally proved my point. He’s inconsistent in listing party affiliation when it comes to Republicans. That’s the part you leave out. I’ve been reading. Turley’s columns for a while and It’s not hard to miss when he’s being partisan and how he addresses issues. He’s consistent in addressing party affiliation when democrats are involved. But when republicans are involved he leaves out party affiliation OR mentions it in passing. You are agreeing with what I’m saying.
“I personally think I’d prefer that party affiliation either always be listed or never be listed and off-hand I couldn’t tell you which way I do it…”
Turley avoided using party affiliation in this column because he CAN be quoted as being critical of Republicans and it can be a way to use his “stature” as a respected intellectual that often sides with Republicans to show that Turley is critical of republicans.
He doesn’t want it alienate his MAGA nutty fans and conservative yahoos. Just like Fox News. He’s scared to lose them.
Svelaz wrote, “Here you literally proved my point.”
No I didn’t. As usual, you’re reading things between the lines that aren’t there and trying to use that to support your argument.
Svelaz wrote, “He’s inconsistent in listing party affiliation when it comes to Republicans. That’s the part you leave out.”
I left nothing out. Turley is inconsistent in listing both Democrats and Republicans and if you didn’t have your head buries up your partisan a$$ you would be able to see it.
My point was that he’s inconsistent across the board (as in there is no apparent partisan bias pattern) and I clearly stated that. Turley is rather non-partisan and as far as I can tell treats both sides of the political aisle relatively equal including the random listing of their political party affiliation. You see Turley’s inconsistency in listing party affiliation as pure partisan bias and I see it as being unbiased because it appears to be completely random and the truth could be somewhere between those two extremes.
My suggestion for Jonathan Turley is to stop listing party affiliation for any politician completely and trolling arguments by trolling ad hominem slinging hacks like Svelaz would be completely unsupportable by any stretchy of the imagination.
This deflection is over Svelaz.
Fin.
“Turley is rather non-partisan and as far as I can tell treats both sides of the political aisle relatively equal including the random listing of their political party affiliation.”
BS. You just don’t want to admit the obvious. Turley IS biased toward conservatives and Republicans. He’s consistent on that.
Whenever democrats are the topic, which is often, he makes sure to note party affiliation. But when it comes to republicans he omits it. It’s THAT obvious. He doesn’t want to alienate his Republican readers by criticizing them for things that he criticizes democrats of.
In this column clearly involves republicans, but he makes a concerted effort to avoid mentioning party affiliation. That way he can pretend to be objective. But clearly he is biased. He’s treating this attack on free speech as if was an outlier. It’s not. It’s a common narrative among Florida republicans who are seeking ways to create fear and doubt by proposing or passing laws that punish or criminalize points of view THEY don’t like or to get back at their critics.
Remember DeSantis punished Disney because it criticized his “don’t say gay” bill. He punished a company for expressing their opinion on a law.
BS. You just don’t want to admit the obvious. Turley IS biased toward conservatives and Republicans. He’s consistent on that.
No.
you are so simple minded you have the cause and effect all screwed up.
Turley is consistent in his support of the Constitution. Not by coincidence, Republicans are much closer followers of the Constitution that Democrats.
What you claim is a bias toward Republicans, is by demonstration, a bias supporting the Constitution
iowan2 wrote, “No. you are so simple minded you have the cause and effect all screwed up.”
It’s become abundantly clear that Svelaz believes right down to his ideological driven bones that correlation = causation, he’s a typical “progressive” hive-minded drone.
How is that censorship? If you want to perform surgery in FL, you have to register with the state, if you want to run a business in the state you have to register. So why not say that if you want to be a ball-less cowardly scat-flinger, you also have register. There is no constitutional protection for libelous bloggers.
“How is that censorship?”
Are you really that slow?
Yeah, I am. Prove to me that requiring registration is censorship. Seems like one day you can say something and then the next day you are registered…and can say something. I fail to see the censorship.
Now, if you are trying to conflate a coward self-censoring with a government actually censoring, you are wrong.
Take your time, figure it out, go ask someone, whatever you need, I’ll wait.
What do you think the effect is of requiring endless paperwork and possible hefty fines for mentioning the name of Ron DeSantis? I’ll bet you don’t think there’s such a thing as voter suppression either.
The question is not whether there is such a thing as voter supression.
It is what is it, and does it occur.
I have zero problem with voter ID – nor do 70% of blacks.
I have no problem with voting in person at the polls on election day.
I have a great problem with any election officials – left or right F#$Kin up an election such that people do not get to vote before the polls close.
If there are long lines – that is a failure of election officials.
If there are equipment problems – that is a failure of election officials.
In the past month the 2021 mayoral election in Berlin was voided – solely because of problems in some precints with equipment.
That is how you run a trustworthy election.
I have no problem with minimal poll taxes, nor with literacy tests, nor with any other measures that make voting more difficult.
I think to vote you should have to pass the same test you must pass to become a US Citizen.
Voting should be hard. We do not want people who do not care enough to overcome obstacles to vote.
I want to supress 50% of the vote because those people are too lazy to get to the polls.
I do not want to supress Blacks or women or hispanics or ..
Only people to lazy to get off their but to get to the polls.
Poll taxes and littercay tests are unconstitutional. That is unfortunate – every good idea that has been abused is not automatically a bad idea.
The point to remember is that no other Republicans have supported this insane idea. To highlight this fool would be like tarring the Democrats with Cori Bush except that with Bush there are many who support her moronic ideas.
The left/media will attach this to DeSantis while they never tie Biden to Cori Bush or Maxine Waters.
No Republican in Florida has condemned the proposal. Some would like it to pass and Desantis would certainly pass such legislation since it would silence his critics.
Hey Democrat Operative, if DeSantis would love to pass this legislation and DeSantis is a tyrant then explain how it has not become the law.
Whether it becomes law or not is irrelevant. It’s the fact that a republican came up with the idea and portrays the mindset of the majority of Desantis supporters in the legislature.
It shows republicans are anti-free speech and are willing to infringe on other peoples 1st amendment rights simply because they can’t stand being criticized.
Republicans in Texas have legislation in the pipeline that would require ISP’s to prevent people from searching for abortion options or to go to abortion sites. Yet another Republican supported attack on free speech.
“A new bill in Texas would require internet service providers inside the state to block sites that provide abortion information, as well making it illegal to host or even provide domain registration for sites that help people in Texas obtain or pay for abortions.
The bill, filed February 23rd by representative Steve Toth, attempts to crush access to services that ship the pregnancy-terminating drugs mifepristone and misoprostol, as well as aid funds that raise money to cover the cost of abortion-related expenses. Under the new bill’s rules, it would be unlawful to “create, edit, upload, publish, host, maintain, or register a domain name for an internet website, platform, or other interactive computer service that assists or facilitates a person’s effort in obtaining an abortion-inducing drug.”
https://www.theverge.com/2023/3/3/23622346/texas-bill-block-isp-access-abortion
That’s a big anti-free speech piece of legislation.
The session only started yesterday and lasts 60 days. The Republicans need to sort through and prioritize their unconstitutional bills, Plus, letting everyone carry a gun with no training or expertise is the highest priority.
Your proof? As usual, all talk, big mouth, little brain.
Just reinforces the stupidity of the legislative class. Thats why we need term limits. That restricts the amount of time that they can soil themselves in public and have their foul acts splash back on us. Maybe also require an intelligence test (just to make sure that they are sentient) and yearly mental status exams. Biden is not the only one mentally challenged.
Extremists possess no particular complexion, gender, sexual preference or orientation, religious persuasion, socio-economic status, political affiliation or place of national origin. In matters of this sort, the response to them depends upon whose ox is being gored.
This dope isn’t doing us any good.
Yes, that was my thought too.
Not all the bad ideas come from progressives!
politicians like Sen. Jason Brodeur when they do these kind’s of things that intentionally chip away at the edges of our constitutional freedoms.
GWBush gave us the Patriot Act. All people with any sense of the history surrounding the Constitution, and the BoR. saw the danger that has materialized, with the govt having free reign to spy on all citizens.
These elected officials are lunatics. Another Florida legislator proposed a criminal law against dogs with their head out of a vehicle window? They really need some psych help.
I have a hard time seeing the difference between this and FEC (or similar state laws) filings for advertising. A paid blog post is a long form advertisement.
https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/advertising-and-disclaimers/
I don’t like the FEC rules, but again I have a hard seeing any difference.
I write for Medium which pays based on views. I am by no means a lobbyist and doubt I have any influence on DeSantis or any other Legislators. I express my opinions, for which DeSantis would have me register with the state. List whatever amount I receive and update it monthly. Identify every person who contribiuted to my income; I could identify some based on them either clapping for or commenting on my piece though many readers are anonymous (I use my real name). Anyone who read my work and didn’t leave a comment or clap or identify themselves I couldn’t identify if I want to. In a given month, I might have a few hundred stories that generate some income, some as little as 1 cent. I don’t get paid by George Soros or the DNC or any elected politician to my knowledge though of they read my work, it might contribute to my income (probably another couple of cents). Please know that nothing in the bill limits the legislation to Florida bloggers. You too could be tagged by this proposed Florida law no matter where in the world you are. Welcome to fascism.
” I have any influence on DeSantis or any other Legislators. I express my opinions, for which DeSantis would have me register with the state.”
You are making things up again.
“I am by no means a lobbyist and doubt I have any influence on DeSantis or any other Legislators. I express my opinions, for which DeSantis would have me register with the state.”
You’re worse than Tucker Carlson. You literally cut the first part of the quote to change the meaning. Do you think that makes you look intelligent?
I started too early in the copying process and started with the wrong I.
It should be shorter. Here is a revision of what I said. I don’t see any problem with my error.
” I express my opinions, for which DeSantis would have me register with the state.”
You are making things up again.
Our host touches on it, but most have not put any thought into the “freedom of the press.”
As already noted, the founders were always working from Historical abuses of Government authority against citizens. When establishing a corrective measure, the wisely sought to protect the means, not the person. Giving the govt the power to define a person, was a sure way for the govt to abuse that person.
( Kind of like a fetus is not a human. And the procedure, Abortion is protected, not the fetus. Word games totalitarian Governments play.)
The protection then attaches to the instrument of of speech, to the person speaking. Freedom of the Press, was literally protecting the means of mass distribution speech, not the Newsman. There is a lesson there concerning the internet.
I would expect something like from the Biden administration, not from a FL GOP politician.
Jonathan Turley wrote, “I have no reason to assume that Sen. Brodeur has nefarious or authoritarian motives in this ill-conceived effort. However, he is on the wrong side of history in proposing a registry and should withdraw his bill.”
That’s Hanlon’s Razor in a nutshell, “never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity”. I’m not so sure that Hanlon’s Razor should apply to politicians like Sen. Jason Brodeur when they do these kind’s of things that intentionally chip away at the edges of our constitutional freedoms. Using Hanlon’s Razor in these cases seems like an unethical rationalization.
Turley is being quite naive with that statement. Brodeur IS being authoritarian. The point of his legislation is to cow or scare off any potential critics by imposing these fines for not identifying the source of a comment. It’s a naked attempt at censoring criticism of the governor and Florida lawmakers. Specifically republicans.
Ray Svelaz Epps has commented.
@hullbobby LOL!
Svelaz is no Ray Epps. He is more like the A$$ Epps rides on.