[quote]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 $1,000 in the aggregate.
Blogs that mention candidates for local office that receive more than 500 hits will be forced to pay a registration fee and will be subject to website traffic audits, according to Chad Jacobs, a San Francisco City Attorney.
The entire Board is set to vote on the measure on April 5th, 2005. I wonder if they’ll be forced to register their own blogs!
The legislation was written by Supervisor Sophie Maxwell.[/quote]
What a bunch of horseshit! What is the justification for this??
The vocal minority of bloggers are hypocritical asswipes who need a reality check. They ranted on and on lately about wanting to be taken seriously as journalists and be covered by all the protections journalists have, like not having to reveal sources and all that, and then when being subject to the same restrictions as journalists doesn’t suit them they piss and moan. Screw them. Anyway, blogging is a bullshit buzzword. It’s people writing their opinions on the Internets - wow, what a revolutionary idea, people haven’t been doing that since, oh, I don’t know, the dawn of the World Wide Web, and even earlier than that. Blogging is just a buzzword for posting on a website.
I couldn’t have said it any better myself Tetsu. I concur 110%. Blogging is essentially nothing more than the geocities website of the mid 90’s reincarnate. Except now the html has generally gotten better and the page design too. Thank god imbedded midi music is a thing of the past.
I don’t know which blogs you guys are reading, but the ones I read are very well done, not joe bloe from idaho talking about his navel. There are some excellent political blogs done by mindful people which provide news and commentary, some of which may not be taken kindly by the main stream media or politicians.
To arbitrarily whip a 1000$ fee on them is nothing more than trying to shut them down and shut them up. It’s economic discrimination.
To get 500 hits is easy, especially if one group of people supporting a “targeted” candidate wants to flood the site, ask the guy at Little Green Footballs.
Hmmm…do I sniff some advocates of censoring free speech here?..sniff…sniff…sniff
The brouhaha in dear old San Francisco is being proposed because the leftist/socialist cabal known as the San Francisco Board of Supervisors has been under scrutiuny by local bloggers. These bloggers are publicizing their antics in office. They do not like having this light shone on their sometimes questionable activities.
San Francisco was once a fantastic place to live. But that is history. Its still a nice place to visit, but ya really wouldn’t want to live there. Unless ya made about US$300,000 or more a year.
This is censorship pure & simple, based on leftist political suppression of free speech.
And “I am schocked…shocked I say to find this advocated here on forumosa!”…(Casablanca paraphrase)
jdsmith (and others who oppose this proposed rule):
Out of curiosity,
(1) Are you generally opposed to all forms of campaign finance reform/regulation, or just this one?
(2) You only mention the fact that bloggers have to report their campaign spending, but the regulation provided in your link also applies to political advertising using radio, television or print media. Are you saying that you think only bloggers should be able to keep their political funding sources secret (i.e. radio and TV ads would not be exempt), or are you saying that the entire idea of disclosing funding for political ads is misguided?
[quote=“Hobbes”]jdsmith (and others who oppose this proposed rule):
Out of curiosity,
(1) Are you generally opposed to all forms of campaign finance reform/regulation, or just this one?
(2) You only mention the fact that bloggers have to report their campaign spending, but the regulation provided in your link also applies to political advertising using radio, television or print media. Are you saying that you think only bloggers should be able to keep their political funding sources secret (i.e. radio and TV ads would not be exempt), or are you saying that the entire idea of disclosing funding for political ads is misguided?[/quote]
Nope, not at all. If the blogs gets money, it should be reported. If the blog is just a political ad then it should be regulated as such.
I happen to read blogs that are NOT funded…my mistake for assuming all were so ethical.
jdsmith - regardless how good they are, they’re nothing special and still, largely, hypocritical. All blogging is is posting to a website, posting your thoughts or information you want others to have. Websites and their predecessors have been doing that since the dawn of the Internets. And if they want to be treated as genuine journalists - as many of the vocal advocates of blogging have campaigned for recenting in the case of Apple going after a blogger for revealing future product plans, where they demanded the blogger be given the right not to reveal his sources - then they need to harden up and take whatever restrictions come with that. They can’t be journalists when it suits them and amateurs when it doesn’t. And you’d be surprised how many of the bigger blogs are funded. Bandwidth ain’t free. It might not be directly political funding, but it leaves the door open.
Oh, and TC - I’m not advocating censorship in this case, I’m advocating people not being hypocritical and taking the bad sides of what they demand with the good. And thanks for trying to drag yet another thread down into “OMG TEH LEFT AER STUPIDHEDS.”
[quote=“Tetsuo”]jdsmith - regardless how good they are, they’re nothing special and still, largely, hypocritical. All blogging is is posting to a website, posting your thoughts or information you want others to have. Websites and their predecessors have been doing that since the dawn of the Internets. And if they want to be treated as genuine journalists - as many of the vocal advocates of blogging have campaigned for recenting in the case of Apple going after a blogger for revealing future product plans, where they demanded the blogger be given the right not to reveal his sources - then they need to harden up and take whatever restrictions come with that. They can’t be journalists when it suits them and amateurs when it doesn’t. And you’d be surprised how many of the bigger blogs are funded. Bandwidth ain’t free. It might not be directly political funding, but it leaves the door open.
Oh, and TC - I’m not advocating censorship in this case, I’m advocating people not being hypocritical and taking the bad sides of what they demand with the good. And thanks for trying to drag yet another thread down into “OMG TEH LEFT AER STUPIDHEDS.”[/quote]
Tetsuo,
you make valid points here, however (isn’t there always a however? ) not all blogs claim to journalists. Some personal blogs are quite good to read; some political blogs seem to be to me anyway grass roots networking, ie, getting the word out about something they feel strongly about.
The guy who leaked Apple’s new line should be prosecuted, if it is proven he obtained the information illegally and “published” it wrongfully.
What about the blogs that discovered Bush’s “service record” was a fraud? This was true, and it embarrassed the MSM that brought it to “light.” Clearly, well IMHO, this was a public service.
To herd all blogs that mention a candidate’s name into one group, then charge them for being read by 500 hits/day…maybe it’s me, but this just doesn’t seem right.
tetsuo -
Yes you are advocating censorship. And I am merely, once again, pointing out the hypocrisy of the left.
I gave the background of the reasoning for this being brought up. San Francisco has turned from a once great city to live in, to a socialist pit. And some residents are using the internet to try and change this. I think they will fail.
Read again TC, instead of oversimplyfing as usual. Where have I said I think they should be subject to this? Go on, find me one point where I’ve said I agree with this move. I’ve said that if bloggers want to be considered journalists they need to take the bad with the good.
[quote=“jdsmith”]
To arbitrarily whip a 1000$ fee on them is nothing more than trying to shut them down and shut them up. It’s economic discrimination.[/quote]
Are you sure that there is a registration fee of $1000?
The article states that blogs must “report all blog-related costs that exceed $1,000 in the aggregate” and “[b]logs that mention candidates for local office that receive more than 500 hits will be forced to pay a registration fee.”
However, I gave a quick read of the proposed ordinance and didn
I do think however that this is enough to qualify for an investigation of whetehr or not it is censorship or not. ANY blog that mentions a political candidate that gets 500 hits/day ( I assume) will be audited (veiled threat IMHO) and a registration fee (I’d also like to know what the fee is.)
If this is an attempt to prevent political PACS from puppeting blogs, fine, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Sounds like a protectionist load of crapola to me.
There must be something I’m missing, because the proposed ordinance that was linked to the article does not require a registration fee or impose “traffic audits.” From what I read, the 500 hits threshold would subject the electioneering communication to the disclosure and reporting requirements I mention above. The ordinance appears to focus on money flow, not traffic flow.
There seems to be 2 different issues here: (1) the novelty of blogs as a medium of communication and (2) the SF ordinance regulating some blogs. I don’t have anything to say about the (2), particularly since it already seems to have been handled. (1) on the other hand…
Something must be different, since there are far, far more people involved in blogging than there ever was writing Geocities pages or what have you. My feeling is that blogging did for the Internet what mass production did for the automobile; since it was invented anyone with the money and knowledge could have bought an automobile, but it simply wasn’t that easy to get the money or knowledge. Mass production put cars in every home. Blogs and their supporting apparatus have put searchable websites and communication in every home. Look at me…for a price that’s easily within my pocketbook, I can effortlessly put an endless number of pages on the Net. I’ve had Geocities accounts and tried to learn HTML, but it
Oh I get that that accessibility thing has made it a big leap and all, but what I don’t get is why the whole world is supposed to be “Oooh whoopie blogs yay blogs are ACE” - and why the mass media is twisting themselves in knots over it. It’s just the old Web in new packaging. I don’t think it deserves being obsessed over like it’s the best thing for mankind since our ancestors crawled out of the primordial ooze. Blogs are good. The overhyping of them is annoying and stupid.
I think that everyone has their favorite blogs, I know I do. But the majority of them online (speculation alert!) are probably personal, what I ate today, who cares in the grand scope of things blogs.
However, I read political blogs for the most part, and they are extremely accurate, and very informative. They are happen to be free of PAC support. They make money from ads.
It is these blogs that are being targeted here. Just the sentence:
[quote]
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. [/quote]
scares the hell out of me. The sites I follow easily match this criteria and the 1000$ cost to operate. Yet they ARE providing accurate information, so it just seems like they are being made a victim of their own success (IF this law applied to them…it doesn’t).
I would like to know the purpose the law was designed for: campaign finance or other darker motives??
And it’s all solved now! Well I’m afraid it’s not. I don’t really care if you have it out for Tainan Cowboy; the fact is that the mass production aspect of the publishing and the ease with which publication can now be access has changed the entire nature of the thought. While I am not impressed with 99% of what I’ve read blogging, the fact is that finding uncredentialed scholars is now simple. High quality political commentary does not have be affiliated with a major media outlet to get heard worldwide. The list is endless. Specialty thought is no longer the domain of professionals.
And one last thing, Tetsuo. You’ve got to say something more that “So what about blogs?” over and over and over again. It just gets repetitious, and the iconoclastic message doesn’t cut it here.
) not all blogs claim to journalists. Some personal blogs are quite good to read; some political blogs seem to be to me anyway grass roots networking, ie, getting the word out about something they feel strongly about.