58 Comments
User's avatar
⭠ Return to thread
Sunnydaze's avatar

So I read the actual Florida bill and correct me if I’m wrong but it would require bloggers to register with the state so they could be monitored. I found it shameful that it was stuck in the middle of the boring bill, but I’m convinced that was to ensure it went unnoticed. And it says a lot about the Republican RINO…ehem Senator who wrote it! I think we need to let HIM know this bill is unacceptable. I have no problem with having to disclose your financial backers, but that’s it. Not being monitored and having to register with the state. This seems waaaaay out of bounds. Am I missing something? I thought we had a Constitutional right to free speech? Why should bloggers have to pay for that right to free speech? Why is criticizing a govt official something that should be monitored? This is under the guise of stopping misinformation? Sounds like fakebook and the rest all over again under different packaging. What am I missing?

Expand full comment
Jeff Childers's avatar

You make the valid First Amendment argument, but as I read the (admitted imprecise) text, only bloggers paid to write about Florida elected officials would be subject to the disclosure requirement. Other bloggers would be unaffected. Again, if I understand the language.

Expand full comment
ViaVeritasVita's avatar

Unaffected for now. Precedent setting.

Expand full comment
Sunnydaze's avatar

I appreciate your optimism, and obviously your interpretation and expert law understanding, and I’m so glad you addressed it this morning.

However, as we have continually watched happen…give any govt an inch and they will take 10 miles and as much more as they can. We cannot allow them to take any more.

I also don’t think that just because a blogger is paid (private sector) they should be subject to the government because they criticize that government. Why must the government get a piece of every single pie? Look no further than cryptocurrency. They can’t tax that blogger more…so let’s call it a “fine” for not registering.

I went outside to do yard work to clear my head and the only thing that seemed more clear is that everything about this stinks like censorship and control and We The People need to make sure it goes no further.

Expand full comment
Raptor's avatar

Yeah, I am not down with registering either. I'm undecided on disclosure especially in light of the implications for ones livelihood should you dare to say anything that sounds sane.

Expand full comment
SadieJay's avatar

I do not want the hassle of reporting any income from a blog because it invites the IRS into your life in a big way. My opinion is free, and it always has been. Even if you don't ask for it. And...if you want to pay me, then I have a rock, under a tree where you can leave my cash. Until they do away with it. That's how they are going to get us all in the end.

Expand full comment
Sunnydaze's avatar

Ya this whole thing stinks of more big government encroaching on citizen free speech and trying to find more ways to squeeze cash from the hard working fingers of citizens. Then calling it a “fine” for not letting the machine monitor us.

Expand full comment
Raptor's avatar

Remember back like under Obama they had a secret snitch on your neighbor, friends, mom and dad who disagree with his policies?

And on the other side of the aisle (sort of. pretended to be a conservative) the invention on homeland security. For our sake.

Just like having to register ANYTHING with the government. Somewhere along the way we have forgotten that we can tell them to p*ss right off. Slowly but surely, thread by thread then piece by piece we will be left with "you will own nothing and be happy".

Expand full comment
Sunnydaze's avatar

I’m right there with you. We need to get the govt out of our lives. That’s why I keep saying give an inch and they’ll take all of it and more. They don’t get the benefit of the doubt anymore. Disbelieve everything they say and do until proven otherwise. And it’s everywhere. Locally too. HOA’s (the little local dictators), permits for absolutely anything you want to do to property you own, tax every single thing they can think of, fines, fees, control speech, biden regime having access to when we withdrawal more than a certain amount out of OUR bank accounts, trying to tax garage sale earnings, now you can’t use electronic transfers between two parties like Venmo or what have you without being taxed on that, and the list goes on and on and on. Total and complete control over every aspect of our lives. “You will own nothing and be happy” says who!

Expand full comment
Lisa Ca's avatar

I agree with you on this.

Expand full comment
Sunnydaze's avatar

Ya I thought of that too. I’d be possibly open to a donor list and beyond a limit maybe? I’m not sure. There has to be a compromise that achieves the Senators objective IF it doesn’t alter freedoms of speech and others protected rights such as that, and help the donors list be more transparent in light of the corruption we are seeing that is clearly funded by criminals with anti American agendas. How to strike that balance. Idk.

Expand full comment
Raptor's avatar

Exactly. I think there might be a way you can say that something is a paid promotion. How much you divulge about the payer...? We live in Cancel Culture where every little thing you say like "I think schools should open" will get you the ax. Lip sinc a rap song 10 years ago and no more position on Gator football roster (cowards). I guess the cancel can go both ways. Quite a few people are not Bull Gators now because of the nonsense.

I digress.

Shoulda just hit on the heart button.

Expand full comment
Sunnydaze's avatar

😂

Expand full comment
OnTheJump's avatar

That's good - because otherwise, it sounds a bit too much like what, tragically, is going on with our neighbors to the North, courtesy of trudeau.

And in some cases, with our very own DOJ. (When Garland isn't guarding the hen house - or so he would claim.)

Expand full comment
ViaVeritasVita's avatar

Loved watching him squirm--twice--under Sen Hawley's questioning

Expand full comment
OnTheJump's avatar

Loved watching him squirm under SEVERAL of these guys' inquiries - but Hawley's inquisition was especially enjoyable.

I couldn't help but think that Garland HAD to be thinking "time to retire" as he sat thru THAT !

Expand full comment
Jay Horton's avatar

Yep, I bet he has a cardboard box full of Maalox.

Later Jay

Expand full comment
David A's avatar

Jeff, I think it is far more dangerous than you suppose, and here is why...https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/vindicated-friday-march-3-2023-c/comment/13272051

Expand full comment
Steve Miller's avatar

If that is the case, it is well hidden as the verbiage says:

286.31 Blogger registration and reporting.—

139 (1) As used in this section, the term:

140 (a) “Blog” means a website or webpage that hosts any

141 blogger and is frequently updated with opinion, commentary, or

142 business content. The term does not include the website of a

143 newspaper or other similar publication.

144 (b) “Blogger” means any person as defined in s. 1.01(3)

145 that submits a blog post to a blog which is subsequently published.

"(c) “Blog post” is an individual webpage on a blog which

148 contains an article, a story, or a series of stories.

149 (d) “Compensation” includes anything of value provided to a

150 blogger in exchange for a blog post or series of blog posts. If

151 not provided in currency, it must be the fair-market value of

152 the item or service exchanged.

153 (e) “Elected state officer” means the Governor, the

154 Lieutenant Governor, a Cabinet officer, or any member of the

155 Legislature.

Expand full comment
Raptor's avatar

I could see bloggers and video makers being paid to write or speak for candidates up for election during a time window close to election having to disclose on the blog post or in the video who is sponsoring the item. At least at first glance.

Expand full comment
Sunnydaze's avatar

I have no problem with people having to disclose who is funding them.

Expand full comment
Peter GL's avatar

If you, the accomplished lawyer, cannot understand the language, what hope does the simple layman have?!?

Expand full comment
YYR's avatar

What happened to "truth in advertising?" Remember when "articles" paid for by sponsors had to contain "paid content" disclaimers in magazines? Every article or news presenter should be under the same rules. "This site received HHS funding" or "this satirical website received campaign funds from X" for posts about said topic.

Expand full comment
SheThinksLiberty's avatar

I read the bill, too, Sunnydaze. Our friend, SadieJay, emailed me last night with this story.

As I read it, it seems to equate getting paid as a blogger to write and have published articles related to the Florida Executive and Legislative branches with being a paid lobbyist. The requirements around reporting -- dates, names, compensation, web addresses, etc. on an electronic government database -- sure sounds like registering as a lobbyist to me. Except you're not.

I agree with Jeff that this bill is unlikely to go anywhere. It is still outrageous, though. I'm calling Brodeur's office today to ask for "clarification." Very unlikely one of our intrepid public servants will pick up the phone, but who knows? Maybe today will be my lucky day -- or theirs. :)

Expand full comment
Sunnydaze's avatar

That is great. SadieJay and I communicated about it this morning 😉

However, as I read the bill the definition of “blogger” needs to be defined then. Because the way I read it it includes everyone who “blogs” and posts articles from other people. They are throwing a lasso out and hoping to catch every single person that posts a political criticism of an elected official. Isn’t that what the 1st amendment is supposed to protect? This is nothing more than more grab for control. Everything in my spirit is wrenching over at this. I do hope it goes no where, but the fact he wrote it and filed it tells us a lot about Republican Rinos and Florida. Freedom is fragile (especially in Florida because it has a huge target on it) and we cannot turn away for one single second or they (all of them) will snatch it away.

Expand full comment
SheThinksLiberty's avatar

I hear you! This bill needs a lot more defining of its terms, including "blogger."

Zack did say its intent is to target paid content that advocates on behalf of an organization via a piece directed to or about a political figure in the Executive or Legislature. Yet, again, I hear you re where this could go...

I think I will follow up via email to ask if Senator Brodeur experienced an instance of being attacked (or praised) by an organization via written content. If the organization solicited the content, paid someone to do it, and then paid that person anonymously, that could be seen as a form of lobbying without the current laws about lobbying applying to that person. This bill would change that.

Right now, it leaves alone you and me ripping new ones on the Governor or anyone else via Comments sections or our own newsletters. The slippery slope is that that could change...

Expand full comment
RunningLogic's avatar

Good points.

Expand full comment
SadieJay's avatar

I would love for you to "make their day". I sure have had enough. Weasely weasels everywhere.

Expand full comment
RunningLogic's avatar

I would love to be able to listen in on THAT conversation! 😬

Expand full comment
SheThinksLiberty's avatar

I called, and as expected, had to leave two VMs -- one in his district office and the other in Tallahassee. Uh, Senator Brodeur, this is Me calling from northwest Florida. I am calling to get clarification and confirmation on your bill, SB 1316.

As I read it -- the 116 additional lines of code -- it seemed to equate blogging about FL Executive and elected Legislative members and getting paid for it with lobbying. Is that a correct interpretation?

Also, I would love to understand more about the legislation, in particular what prompted it. I'd be very grateful to hear back from you or someone from your office with help on my questions. As I am sure you know, your bill is getting a lot of attention on social media...and blogs...of course.

Thanks a bunch. Hugs and kisses.

OK, I didn't actually include that last part.

I remained polite throughout, repeated my name and phone number, and said good-bye.

Expand full comment
RunningLogic's avatar

Please keep us posted!

Also lol to the hugs and kisses 😆 Although with some of these people, if you had actually said that, you might have gotten a personal meeting with them 🙄

Expand full comment
SheThinksLiberty's avatar

😂😂😂 𝙍𝙞𝙜𝙝𝙩?

Expand full comment
SadieJay's avatar

Which end??

Expand full comment
Sunnydaze's avatar

I’m planning to call too!

Expand full comment
SheThinksLiberty's avatar

Please do! I just got a call back from "Zack" in Senator Brodeur's office. Good conversation. He confirmed my interpretation of this as similar to having lobbyists register. Senator Brodeur's thinking is that the public has a right to know if an organization or website solicited and compensated a writer/blogger to advocate on its behalf. I agreed saying that given the last three years of all of us being subjected to "vested interests," I can see the Senator's point in saying that the public has a right to know who's writing for whom and how much $$$ they were paid to do so.

I shared that this has caused grave concern and asked if the Senator has considered the "moral hazard" or downside of this legislation. Zack said he had and that the bill will get much more review. We got into more detail and it was a good conversation. Zack said they're being "inundated" with calls and emails. Said I believed it.

Then for good measure, threw in that I'd be in Tallahassee on Tuesday to advocate on behalf of SB 222, the Protect Medical Freedom bill. Does the Senator support that? Zack said he was unsure if the Senator had had a chance to read the bill (1,500 already submitted), but that he does support the right of people to make their own medical choices. Great, I said...There are millions of us who are going to be keeping on eye on that one...

Do call, Sunnydaze...

Expand full comment
Sunnydaze's avatar

I did! Although not as eloquently as you, I’m sure 😂

I said,

I’m a resident of central Florida. (Gave contact info)

I would like further clarification on senate bill 1316 which you must know by now is getting a lot of pushback from citizens and bloggers. First, this appears to be a clear 1st amendment violation and at a time when governments all over the country and big tech have stripped Americans of their right to free speech, this bill is suspect to say the least.

At a time when the federal and state governments are coming after citizens financially and calling them “fines” for non-compliance I would think you would have thought long and carefully about what message this bill would send to your constituents.

Please have someone contact me and further clarify why you would seemingly go after bloggers in the private sector in this manner. And by definition, blogger doesn’t seem to be limited to specific lobbyists but rather ordinary citizens reporting news worthy information, sharing political information about what our governments are actually doing and voicing criticism of elected officials on behalf of the citizenry in Florida, since our media tyrants and censors refuse to do so.

Thank you for your time.

Hugs and kisses. 😉

Expand full comment
SheThinksLiberty's avatar

Well done!

Right now, the bill excludes ordinary citizens reporting newsworthy info. It is restricted to an organization's solicited and paid for content that advocates for the interests of that organization directed to the Executive or Legislative branch.

You're right, though -- it could "go there" -- forcing ordinary people to "register." (My husband is as steamed as you are.)

Did you add the "hugs and kisses?"

Expand full comment
Sunnydaze's avatar

Hahaha. I kept that for you and C&C 😂

I think the verbiage isn’t clear to some of us non-lawyer people so I would appreciate a lot more conversation about that piece, but I also am done giving any politician the benefit of the doubt because they are sneaky and love to implement policy and laws behind our backs in the dead of night behind closed doors. So, unfortunately I come out swinging against anything that doesn’t smell right. Kind of cut off the soldiers ear and ask for forgiveness later (biblical reference 😂).

I’m not willing to give these politicians on either side of the aisle an inch. They should be met with fierce questioning from the public for every single thing they do. They should be fearful of the citizens being critical of every move they make. That helps breed accountability. They should approach every bill with “what are my constituents going to say?” Rather than what they probably say now which is “who cares what they say”.

I’m really glad you found out they are getting hammered with calls from the citizenry. That is excellent!!!

Expand full comment
Lisa Ca's avatar

This is good. And I actually fully agree with the intent because how many times have we been saying (for the past 5 years!) “follow the money”. The truth is it DOES matter. And food for thought - it really isn’t FREE speech if you are being paid for it. Sorry. Its a job. FREE is me posting right here with my comments and no incentives.

Expand full comment
RunningLogic's avatar

That sounds like an interesting and productive conversation!

Expand full comment
RunningLogic's avatar

Please let us know what happens!

Expand full comment
Sharon Beautiful Evening's avatar

Let us know if you every hear ANTHING (either written or spoken) from your "esteemed" Senator Brodeur.

Expand full comment
SheThinksLiberty's avatar

I did hear back from his office and I shared what his legislative aide said in another comment. (My senator is Doug Broxson.) It was a good conversation.

Expand full comment
Sharon Beautiful Evening's avatar

Did they explain in detail what this bill would contain and why it was drafted in the first place?

Expand full comment
SheThinksLiberty's avatar

Briefly, the Senator believes that the public has a right to know who is getting paid to advocate on behalf of organizations via their blog posts. I wanted to ask, but didn't get to it, about an instance of Senator Brodeur being on the receiving end of this type of "lobbying".

The legislative aide said that the bill was drafted quickly to make the deadline for this legislative session. It has much review and redrafting to go through and then passage in both houses before it ever makes its way to the Governor's desk. For his signature...or not.

Expand full comment
Sharon Beautiful Evening's avatar

Wonderful! Bills like this are "fluff"...but makes it appear our legislators are actually "working"--HAH!

Expand full comment
Roger Beal's avatar

AND: When will DeSantis state his stand on this? What has the potential Trump-alternative POTUS candidate to say about leftard-style censorship in the "free state" of Florida, even if said censorship appears to be limited in scope? Thinking about the camel's nose.

Expand full comment
Karmy's avatar

I saw a clip yesterday of a police officer telling Trump supporters outside of a DeSantis book signing that DeSantis said anyone wearing Trump gear had to go. What was that about?

Expand full comment
Based Florida Man's avatar

It was private property of the shopping center. They had to move to the sidewalk (public property).

Expand full comment
Sunnydaze's avatar

Thanks! I saw the clip and asked questions too because unfortunately we only see the clip they want us to see - I wanted to see the follow up for clarity of what really happened.

Expand full comment
RunningLogic's avatar

That sort of manipulation happens all of the time so you are right to ask questions! Context and full disclosure are important!

Expand full comment
SheThinksLiberty's avatar

Do I understand correctly that the book store barred entry based on the T shirt? IOW, those with the T shirts had to remain outside this public accommodation, denied fair and equal access to the "private company" acting as a public accommodation?

Expand full comment
Jaci's avatar

Not sure, but just like wearing a satanic-shirt to church...

Expand full comment
SheThinksLiberty's avatar

A church is exempt from public accommodation laws that bar discrimination. IOW, a church 𝒄𝒂𝒏 discriminate.

Expand full comment
Lisa Ca's avatar

It just seems to me that it would make one seem far more credible if they just announced their payouts but I absolutely do not like “registering”.

Expand full comment