Florida bill would require bloggers to register before writing about DeSantis

A bill proposed this week by a Republican state senator in Florida would require bloggers who write about Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.), his Cabinet officers and members of the Florida legislature to register with the state. Bloggers who receive compensation for a given online post about an elected state officer would have to register with…

The Hill
@Popehat this definition also includes basically any news site

@zetazero @Popehat
The bill itself excludes news organizations explicitly, though it doesn't make the distinction very clear...

"The term does not include the website of a
143 newspaper or other similar publication."

@zetazero @Popehat the law specifically excludes media organizations.
@jkfecke so the definition doesn’t include any news site.
@smilerz @jkfecke
Is your point that they're only trampling on the rights of bloggers?
@fedup @jkfecke yes? Call me crazy but I think accurately describing reality is important.
@smilerz @fedup Except the difference between the two is a term of art. There's no National News Registry that turns something from a blog to news.
@jkfecke @fedup defined terms in legislation arent “terms of art”
@smilerz @fedup The definition in this bill is that a blog is a blog.
@smilerz @jkfecke
Shouldn't trampling on anyone's rights be a bad thing?
@fedup @jkfecke I didn’t realize accurately describing a law was considered support for said law.
@smilerz @jkfecke
Would it satisfy your need for accuracy if it was said that the law is alarming and could open the door to attacks on the news media?
@fedup @jkfecke I’m. It aware of anything I’ve said that would suggest otherwise.
@fedup @jkfecke though I don’t think laws that aren’t likely to pass and are obviously going to be struck down as unconstitutional are terribly alarming.
@smilerz @jkfecke
You mean like discriminating on the basis of "religious freedom" would most likely always be struck down by the courts?
Got it.
Nothing to see here, we haven't seen a continuous sustained attack on democracy and the constitution by a well funded political machine.
Carry on.
@fedup @jkfecke we are taking about a specific law in FL not some imaginary law that you’d like to discuss instead.
@smilerz @fedup Yes, SCOTUS is definitely committed to stare decisis and is not just playing Calvinball.
@jkfecke @fedup thanks for an excellent example of non-sequitor. You have a talent.
@smilerz @fedup It isn't a non sequitur. You state this is clearly unconstitutional. If SCOTUS has proven anything over the last year, "settled law" and "clear text" are no longer things it considers in making rulings. There is no law that is definitely unconstitutional anymore.
@jkfecke @fedup SCOTUS has proven no such thing. They’ve been remarkable consistent on free speech cases.
Tennessee becomes first state to ban drag shows on public property, near schools

Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee signed legislation placing restrictions on drag shows and becoming first state to severely limit the performances. The law takes effect in July.

Fox News
Letter to the editor: Banning readings in drag is hypocritical

Our fearless Republican leaders in Helena seem to “think” that drag readings should be banned to viewers younger than age 18. That’s HB 359. Pre-school children, however, are allowed to

Billings Gazette
@fedup @jkfecke has SCOTUS rendered a decision in that case that I’m unaware of?
@smilerz @jkfecke
The only reason red states are passing "unconstitutional laws" is because they know they have a federalist society appointed scotus that puts their ideological beliefs, religious or otherwise, ahead of the constitution and/ or precedence.
There seems to be a great deal you are unaware of.
@fedup @jkfecke im perfectly aware of how consistently SCOTUS has upheld speech rights and how unlikely there is going to be major changes in that track record any time soon.
@smilerz @Popehat thanks, i didn’t read the bill. that distinction seems tenuous to me but we’ll see
@zetazero @Popehat it’s 100% unconstitutional but that’s not an excuse to misrepresent what the law proposes.
@smilerz @Popehat I don’t know who you are or why you’re replyguying me
@zetazero @Popehat I replied to you becAise you were wrong.
@Popehat This is College Republicans type stuff.

@dbfulton @Popehat

This is college Nazi type stuff (but I guess, these days, it's no different).

@Popehat Although I’m finding it hard to laugh.

@Popehat Among the reasons this is stupid is plain, simple government waste.

If only there were, I don’t know, some kind of system for searching for posts mentioning an individual or group of individuals. Some kind of engine one could use to run searches like that automatically.

N’ah, too hard, let’s put a burden on the public, like typical Democrats… uh, Republicans apparently.

@mtomczak @Popehat

They don't give a crap about government waste when they do it. They will absolutely ignore all their so-called principles if it gets them more power. #GOPbetrayedAmerica

@Popehat Perhaps Republicans on SCOTUS will consider striking down this fascist law if NY, CA, IL pre-emptively pass similar laws that target Republican media in their states, with the proviso they go into effect if and only if SCOTUS upholds the DeSantis law.

@NavinPokala @Popehat

SCOTUS will find a way to make the Dem state's laws illegal while letting DeSantis force everyone in America to call him "your majesty" under threat of being hanged.

@NavinPokala @Popehat A ‘constitutionalist’ could easily argue that the First Amendment only prevents the federal government (“Congress”) from limiting speech while states are free to jail people for their speech.
@LeonardoDiOttio Not since the 14th Amendment.
@Popehat
They are constantly testing how far they can go, how much support they can get, and seeing who will stop them. They won't stop until they're stopped.

@Popehat
I link this to earlier testing-the-waters/gaslighting behavior really utilized to full capacity by Trump. It goes like this:

Trump says or does something vile and despicable.
if (Not a Big Pushback) then
"Of course I'm serious"
else
"It was a joke. Don't get hysterical"

MAGA Republican traitors will continue to say and do extreme things and they're gauging how much support they can actually get. Because if Jan6 taught us anything, it's that to our -- and probably even their -- surprise, there is an illiberal, fascist movement on the right, provided cover and supported by Fox propaganda, and comprising a broad swath of sitting members of the senate and house who are willing to use their positions to legitimize lies and conspiracy theories in a broad effort to overthrow a lawful, democratic election.

We talk about the brave few who held the line and defended democracy, but what about the many who tried, and are still trying, to support a coup.

@DroidEngineer @Popehat

It's the legislative version of a Gish Gallop; they're trying to pass so much stuff that it isn't economical or possible to challenge everything effectively.

@Popehat I realize the current majority in the Supreme Court pays no deference to the Constitution, but isn't this "bill" blatantly unconstitutional?
@Whako @Popehat Yeah I'd be surprised if even the gnarliest conservative judge let this one through. Its the text book definition of a first ammendment violation

@shayneoneill @Whako @Popehat Is it though, they are not stopping them from saying anything, they just have to register if they get payment for saying it.

However Russian much, I really think the USA have an issue with Russian influence.

@tipsyatwork @shayneoneill @Whako @Popehat The argument that "It's just registration, not a limit on speech" has been addressed long ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamont_v._Postmaster_General
Lamont v. Postmaster General - Wikipedia

@LizardSF @shayneoneill @Whako @Popehat Thanks for the link, at first, I could not see the relevance between that and what they are talking about here, there is another link in that article for the chilling affect, that then put it into more context for me. Cheers.

@tipsyatwork @Whako @Popehat

Registration schemes are neither new, nor have they *ever* been considered acceptable under the first ammendment. The first ammendments really clear and unambigous in that regard.

And its pretty savage what is counted. If you want to write a pamphlet or blog about how great Al Quaida is, your free to do it, as long as you dont go including instructions , or the reasonably limited list of things courts do excempt from the first ammendment (ie violations of national secrets, contact addresses for spooky terror camps etc) your free to get pretty damn seditious [see pretty much all the cases around the communist party and the various ham fisted attempts govts made during the cold war to ban them], and theres not a damn thing the govt can do to stop you.

And writing mean things about the govenor? Yeah "registration" schemes are not gonna fly.

@Whako @Popehat My expertise is in Third Amendment case law, but it certainly seems to violate the First Amendment. I wish that still meant something, but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
@Popehat Not to pick but I think we’ve entered the not-comically stage.

@CardboardRobot @Popehat
It was never comical.

The cartoon villainy was always to keep us from taking them seriously. Remember that TV show buffoon w the silly hair and 3rd grade vocabulary?

@CardboardRobot @Popehat
In fact, the comical is what draws some people to watch.
@Popehat FLORIDA. Come on now. You’re just messing with us now. Right, Florida? RIGHT?
@Popehat isn't this all unconstitutional?
@Livelaughlovecraft deeply. But with Trump’s deeply weakened judiciary I guess he’s finding the limits of what he can get away with.