Too Lazy to Read: Bloggers Freak Over SF Ordinance

Have you heard the latest meme sweeping the blogosphere? San Francisco Board of Supervisors is considering an ordinance making all bloggers register with the City Ethics Commission? And charge bloggers $1000 if their blog mentions local candidates and attracts more than 500 readers.

You can imagine the outrage.

San Francisco May Regulate Blogging screams Personal Democracy Forum, who call for an email storm against the Board. PR blogger B.L. Ochman, swooning over the First Amendment, thinks that's a fine idea and suggests tarring and feathering.

P2P jumps on the memewagon, as does Gilmor, though he does make a little gesture of skepticism before passing it on.  Josh Hallett notes that the report has been slashdotted.

Just one problem. The proposed ordinance (which is only a few pages long) is not about controlling bloggers. It's about bringing to heel third-party advocacy groups that try to influence local elections. It doesn't single out bloggers (it encompasses all political communication made within 90 days of an election). And there's no mention of a $1000 fee.

I've read it -- twice. If there's anything in it to justify one jot of the hysteria of the blogosphere, then my analytical skills have simply deserted me.

What's irritating is how many bloggers -- first-rate writers at that -- jumped on this meme without taking the 10 minutes required to read the draft ordinance. How on earth do they expect to be taken seriously as alternatives to MSM when they pass gossip and inflated stories with the thoughtlessness of high-school freshmen?

And where does this paranoia come from? The recent Apple vs. Bloggers flare-up had similar "They are out to get bloggers!" undertones. Paranoia doesn't make much sense, especially when your next post crows about how blogging will surely topple the established order.

"No medium can survive the institutional laziness of its writers" is, if I remember, the lesson bloggers believe they taught Dan Rather. Too bad it's a lesson some quickly forgot.

UPDATE (April 6): I told you so!

"Blogs are to be exempt," said Supervisor Sophie Maxwell, specifically citing the phrasing that cuts "news stories, commentaries or editorials distributed through any newspaper, radio station, television station or other recognized news medium unless such news medium is owned or controlled by a political party" out of the ordinance. "The intent of the legislation is to cover blogs as a recognized news entity," Maxwell said.

Read Chris Nolan's on-the-spot report. Of course, now the blogosphere will probably spontaneously self-congratulate itself.

UPDATE (April 7):  Chris Nolan follows up at EWeek saying bloggers should have chilled first.

"So who erred in this little comedy of misunderstanding? Well, the supervisors, by drafting a dumb and poorly written law. Bloggers who didn't read the legislation or take into account the exemption or the ambiguity of the proposed law did their share."

Posted by Allan Jenkins on April 5, 2005 at 07:44 PM in Law, Politics | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c215853ef00d83459074f69e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Too Lazy to Read: Bloggers Freak Over SF Ordinance:

» Remember from PR meets the WWW
"No medium can survive the institutional laziness of its writers" is, if I remember, the lesson bloggers believe they taught Dan Rather. Too bad it's a lesson some quickly forgot. Allan Jenkins, Desirable Roasted Coffee... [Read More]

Tracked on Apr 9, 2005 2:48:56 AM

Comments

It certainly is about blogs!

Note that newspapers and magazines are not included in the bill's definition (below) because they are considered journalistic outlets. Including Internet communications means blogs, forums, newsletters, and makes the hotly debated assumption that bloggers are not journalists.

"Electioneering Communication" shall mean any communication, including but not limited to any broadcast, cable, satellite, radio, internet or telephone communications, and any mailing, flyer, doorhanger, pamphlet, brochure, card, sign, billboard, facsimile, or printed advertisement that
A) refers to a clearly defined candidate for City elective office...."

Blogs like DailyKos and others carried huge amounts of political advertising during the election. I can understand asking online publications, including blogs, that carry political advertising to register as such IF newspapers and magazines have to do the same.

But many blogs (including this one) pointed to sites where contributions could be made to candidates. Many of us used our platform to endorse candidates, to encourage voting and other political actions. Asking us to register because we "refer to a clearly defined candidate" is abridging our freedom of speech.

Under this ordinance, bloggers would have to register but newspapers and magazines -- "real journalists" -- would not.

I say tar and feather Sophie Maxwell.

Posted by: B.L. Ochman | Apr 5, 2005 10:00:57 PM

Well, B. L., I can only say that you're barking up the wrong tree. Read more here:
http://www.chrisnolan.com/archives/000740.html

Posted by: Allan Jenkins | Apr 6, 2005 12:30:59 PM

I still have a problem with it. Government regulation of political speech is to be avoided. This is the first slice of the Salami. And what value do we get for this, nothing but incumbent protection in the Barbary Coast.

Posted by: not a Yank | Apr 7, 2005 11:42:47 AM

But this isn't about "regulating" political speech. It's merely about "reporting" who is doing paid political speech, and on behalf of whom.

As a voter, I certainly want to know who is paying for the ads I see. And since the registration process seems no more onerous that the registration process for just voting, I don't think the proposed ordinance is going to crimp anyone.

But, hey, I don't live in SF. I was simply pointing out that leading bloggers seemed to be writhing in fear over nothing.

Posted by: Allan Jenkins | Apr 7, 2005 12:11:32 PM

Blogs, like e-mail, enable one to reach others with blinding speed. And with blogs, the audience can reach the tens of thousands. Unfortunately, both technologies have led to many people hitting publish/send, and asking questions later. The degradation of letter-writing as a result of e-mail is well documented; the analogy of blogs to journalism many appear shakier. After all, some bloggers have had some famous triumphs, most notably Rathergate. And “professional journalism” was in a notoriously degraded state by the time some bloggers gained fame. But relatively few bloggers had a hand in exposing Rathergate. And bloggers have been suckered, as well (or aided and abetted) in perpetrating hoaxes through “blogrolling,” most notably Election Day’s exit poll hoax.

At this point, the technology is a virtually idiot-proof joy, but just as the Internet did not repeal the laws of economics, blogs will not repeal the “laws” of technology and the media. The technology is already being co-opted by established powers. And many top bloggers owe their dominance to pre- or non-blogger status (famous journalist, tenured professor, well-connected GOP lawyer). However, the technology will allow a few new, powerful voices to be heard, in spite of lacking money, power, and connections, and that is grounds for sober appreciation.

Posted by: Nicholas Stix | Apr 7, 2005 9:34:03 PM

Nicholas, I think all serious bloggers are bloggers by virtue of what they do for their bread and butter. I mean, B.L. and I blog about PR and marketing because that's what we do.

By the way, I don't think "blogrolling" has quite that meaning, at least not to bloggers.

Posted by: Allan Jenkins | Apr 7, 2005 10:30:30 PM

Post a comment