Ron Desantis (The Desantis Doctrine)

[Seacoaster(1)]

https://www.wfla.com/news/politics/flor ... the-state/

"Florida Sen. Jason Brodeur (R-Lake Mary) wants bloggers who write about Gov. Ron DeSantis, Attorney General Ashley Moody, and other members of the Florida executive cabinet or legislature to register with the state or face fines.

Brodeur’s proposal, Senate Bill 1316: Information Dissemination, would require any blogger writing about government officials to register with the Florida Office of Legislative Services or the Commission on Ethics.

In the bill, Brodeur wrote that those who write “an article, a story, or a series of stories,” about “the Governor, the Lieutenant Governor, a Cabinet officer, or any member of the Legislature,” and receives or will receive payment for doing so, must register with state offices within five days after the publication of an article that mentions an elected state official.

If another blog post is added to a blog, the blogger would then be required to submit monthly reports on the 10th of each month with the appropriate state office. They would not have to submit a report on months when no content is published."

See where this is going?

[RedFromMI]

https://www.wfla.com/news/politics/flor ... the-state/

"Florida Sen. Jason Brodeur (R-Lake Mary) wants bloggers who write about Gov. Ron DeSantis, Attorney General Ashley Moody, and other members of the Florida executive cabinet or legislature to register with the state or face fines.

Brodeur’s proposal, Senate Bill 1316: Information Dissemination, would require any blogger writing about government officials to register with the Florida Office of Legislative Services or the Commission on Ethics.

In the bill, Brodeur wrote that those who write “an article, a story, or a series of stories,” about “the Governor, the Lieutenant Governor, a Cabinet officer, or any member of the Legislature,” and receives or will receive payment for doing so, must register with state offices within five days after the publication of an article that mentions an elected state official.

If another blog post is added to a blog, the blogger would then be required to submit monthly reports on the 10th of each month with the appropriate state office. They would not have to submit a report on months when no content is published."

See where this is going?

Probably nowhere in reality given that it will have some serious first amendment problems. As written it would apply to any of us...

[Seacoaster(1)]

https://www.wfla.com/news/politics/flor ... the-state/

"Florida Sen. Jason Brodeur (R-Lake Mary) wants bloggers who write about Gov. Ron DeSantis, Attorney General Ashley Moody, and other members of the Florida executive cabinet or legislature to register with the state or face fines.

Brodeur’s proposal, Senate Bill 1316: Information Dissemination, would require any blogger writing about government officials to register with the Florida Office of Legislative Services or the Commission on Ethics.

In the bill, Brodeur wrote that those who write “an article, a story, or a series of stories,” about “the Governor, the Lieutenant Governor, a Cabinet officer, or any member of the Legislature,” and receives or will receive payment for doing so, must register with state offices within five days after the publication of an article that mentions an elected state official.

If another blog post is added to a blog, the blogger would then be required to submit monthly reports on the 10th of each month with the appropriate state office. They would not have to submit a report on months when no content is published."

See where this is going?

Probably nowhere in reality given that it will have some serious first amendment problems. As written it would apply to any of us...

Exactly. But they are trying it out, pressing the edge, preparing for test cases. Here's another:

https://reason.com/2023/02/22/ron-desan ... ation-law/

"A legislative ally of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis introduced a bill in the Florida House on Tuesday that would remove many of the legal protections against defamation lawsuits established in the 1964 Supreme Court case New York Times v. Sullivan. The new bill is yet another attempt by DeSantis, an aggressive critic of defamation law, to curb First Amendment protections in Florida.

Introduced by Rep. Alex Andrade (R—Pensacola), the bill would make sweeping changes to the standards for pursuing a defamation claim against a public figure. The law would narrow the definition of a public figure by excluding persons whose notoriety arises solely from "defending himself or herself publicly against an accusation," giving an interview on a subject, public employment (other than elected or appointed office), or "a video, an image, or a statement uploaded on the Internet that has reached a broad audience."

"At the end of the day, it's our view in Florida that we want to be standing up for the little guy against some of these massive media conglomerates," DeSantis said in a February 7 roundtable event on the subject, adding that journalism "really chills, I think, people's willingness to want to participate" in public discussion.

DeSantis has strongly criticized New York Times v. Sullivan, a 1964 Supreme Court case establishing the actual malice standard for defamation claims against public figures. Following Sullivan, public officials could not successfully sue for libel or defamation without proving that the false statements made against them were made with "actual malice"—meaning "with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not."

Andrade's bill explicitly defies Sullivan by establishing that the "actual malice" standard will not be required to prove defamation "when the allegation does not relate to the reason for his or her public status." Further, the bill also significantly expands the circumstances under which a fact finder can infer actual malice, such as when an allegation is "inherently implausible" or "There are obvious reasons to doubt the veracity" of the allegation.

Another troubling provision of the bill says that "an allegation that the plaintiff has discriminated against another person or group because of their race, sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity constitutes defamation per se." This means that when such an accusation is false, it will automatically be considered defamation. However, the bill also restricts how individuals can prove the truth of their claims, as claims of discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation cannot be verified by "citing plaintiff's constitutionally protected religious expression or beliefs," or their "scientific" beliefs.

The bill singles out journalists in particular. It removes existing protections of "journalist's privilege," which allows journalists, under most circumstances, to refuse to identify anonymous sources or disclose other information gained in newsgathering. The bill explicitly removes these privileges in the interest of legal defamation claims. Further, the bill would make using anonymous sources much more difficult. Not only would the bill assume that statements from anonymous sources are false in defamation proceedings, but simply using an anonymous source will be considered sufficient for actual malice. In cases where a journalist refuses to identify an anonymous source, the bill states that "plaintiffs need only prove that the defendant acted negligently."

The bill would face immediate legal challenges if passed and signed into law, which seems to be the point.

"There have been some in conservative circles, including Justice Thomas, who have wanted there to be a test case to revisit Times v. Sullivan," Joe Cohn, the legislative and policy director at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, tells Reason. "And I think there are lawmakers out there that want to provide legislation that contradicts the existing case law as an invitation for courts to send that up the chain. And it's tremendously chilling of speech."

This bill is only the latest attempt from Gov. DeSantis to chill dissenting speech in Florida.

"The bill is an aggressive and blatantly unconstitutional attempt to rewrite defamation law in a manner that protects the powerful from criticism by journalists and the public," says Cohn. "And it really champions the rights of the powerful and public figures in particular as compared to the rights of ordinary people to raise questions and lodge criticisms."

[Seacoaster(1)]

Checks on bloggers writing about matters of public interest. Changes to defamation law. And restrictions on academic freedom. The anti-1st Amendment crusade/laboratory experiment going on in Florida:

https://www.thefire.org/news/thought-st ... bill-worse

"Earlier this week, shortly after filing a bill intended to roll back New York Times v. Sullivan, a critical bulwark against government censorship, Florida state Rep. Alex Andrade introduced House Bill 999.

The measure, previewed last month by Gov. Ron DeSantis, would expand on the state’s “Stop WOKE Act” — a law FIRE is currently fighting in federal court, where it was preliminarily enjoined because it violates the First Amendment — to further erode the rights of faculty and students at Florida’s public universities and colleges.

House Bill 999 is laden with unconstitutional provisions hostile to freedom of expression and academic freedom. If passed, it would represent another retreat from the open exchange of ideas that Florida’s leaders embraced just four years ago. Back in 2019, Florida lawmakers understood that faculty and students discussing and debating ideas at odds with majoritarian public opinion is a necessary component of a liberal arts education. Now, they will consider passing into law still more restrictions on what ideas faculty and students may explore on campus.

Limits on classroom discussion and teaching

HB 999 would require faculty to censor their discussion and materials in general education courses, to the detriment of both faculty and their students. The measure would prohibit faculty teaching these courses from including material that “teaches identity politics,” which the bill defines as “Critical Race Theory” — something the bill does not define. Faculty teaching courses on history, philosophy, humanities, literature, sociology, or art would be required to guess what material administrators, political appointees, or lawmakers might label “identity politics” — no matter how pedagogically relevant the material is to the course.

HB 999 would also require that general education courses rewrite “American history,” prohibiting teaching that would suggest that America was anything other than “a new nation based on universal principles stated in the Declaration of Independence.” And faculty would be required to guess what it means — again, in the eyes of administrators and political appointees — to “suppress or distort significant historical events.”

But perhaps the most vague restriction in HB 999 is its prohibition on the inclusion of “unproven, theoretical, or exploratory content” in general education courses. A broad range of academic content — including quite literally all scientific theories — is contested and theoretical. State officials would have unfettered discretion to determine which views are “theoretical” and banned from general education courses. A bill so vague that it allows officials the discretion to declare that professors cannot discuss new theories and ideas in a particular public university class should be rejected, flat out.

These censorial filters are unconstitutional. As FIRE has explained many, many times in our defense of faculty across the political spectrum, the First Amendment and academic freedom protect the right of faculty members to discuss pedagogically relevant material and viewpoints in their courses.

Further, HB 999 would eliminate “any major or minor” that “engenders beliefs in the concepts defined” in the unconstitutional Stop WOKE Act, as well as any “major or minor in Critical Race Theory, Gender Studies, or Intersectionality,” or any “derivative major or minor of these belief systems.”

As we have said before, efforts to purge universities of gender studies because of the viewpoints they advance are reminiscent of attacks on academic freedom abroad. But here in the United States, the First Amendment bars the legislative imposition of the “pall of orthodoxy” over higher education — part of the half-century of Supreme Court precedent curricular bans in higher education are unconstitutional.

Limits on student and faculty speech outside of the classroom

HB 999 doesn’t just limit faculty speech. It would prohibit any “services” or the expenditure of “any funds, regardless of source” in “support” of any “programs or activities” that “espouse diversity, equity, and inclusion or Critical Race Theory rhetoric.”

Yet many campus “programs” or “activities” — including student organizations, publications, and guest speakers — are organized by students and supported by student activity funding. If implemented as written, the measure would impose a viewpoint-based limit on student expression in violation of the First Amendment. It would also curtail the ability of faculty members to organize panels, conferences, publications, or guest lectures if they “espouse . . . rhetoric” state lawmakers find objectionable.

Giving university presidents expansive power over hiring, firing, and post-tenure review jeopardizes academic freedom.

This result would be strikingly at odds with what the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit identified just last year as the “chief mission” of our public colleges and universities: “to equip students to examine arguments critically and, perhaps even more importantly, to prepare young citizens to participate in the civic and political life of our democratic republic.”

Erosion of tenure and faculty participation in hiring

As FIRE said when the DeSantis administration first floated its policy proposals:

Giving university presidents expansive power over hiring, firing, and post-tenure review jeopardizes academic freedom. The more power that one individual has to call the shots on campus, the easier it is for political forces — be they donors, politicians, students, or activists — to dictate the range of acceptable ideas and voices. Administrators with more authority will be pressured to use that authority in ways that today’s political climate cannot forecast.

HB 999 will invite political interference in hiring and tenure decisions. It requires that all faculty hiring be conducted by the board of trustees or an institution’s president. While recognizing that universities may “review” a faculty member’s tenure “at any time with cause,” HB 999 also authorizes the board of trustees to, “at the request of its chair, review any faculty member’s tenure status,” omitting comparable “with cause” language.

This omission appears to grant boards and presidents the authority to “review” tenure without cause — a change that would effectively eliminate tenure as most faculty understand it today. If the political appointees who populate boards of trustees can review tenure at any time, for any reason, it will strip faculty of a primary purpose of tenure: to protect scholarship, research, and teaching from political pressure.

[CU88]

March 2, 2023
HEATHER COX RICHARDSON
MAR 3

It’s commonly understood that Republican Rutherford B. Hayes won the electoral votes from three contested southern states in 1876 and thus took the presidency by promising to remove from the South the U.S. troops that had been protecting Black Americans there. Then, the story goes, he removed the troops in 1877 and ended Reconstruction.

But that isn’t what happened.

On March 2, 1877, at 3:50 in the morning, the House of Representatives finally settled the last question of presidential electors and decided the 1876 election in favor of the Republican, Rutherford B. Hayes, just two days before the new president was to be sworn in.

The election had been bitterly contested. Democratic candidate Samuel Tilden appeared to have won the popular vote by about 250,000 votes, but broken ballot boxes and terrorized Black voters in three southern states made it clear the count was suspect. A commission of fifteen lawmakers tried to judge which of the dueling slates of electors from those states were legitimate. In the end, the commission, dominated by Republicans, decided the true electors belonged to Hayes.

To make sure the southerners who were threatening civil war over the election did not follow through, leading industrialists and lawmakers made promises to southern leaders that a Republican president would look favorably on federal grants to southern railroads and would not fill government positions with Republicans in the South, giving control of patronage there to a Democrat.

But what did not happen in 1877, either before or after the inauguration, was the removal of troops from the South.

That legend came from a rewriting of the history of Reconstruction in 1890 by fourteen southern congressmen. In their book Why the Solid South? Or Reconstruction and Its Results, they argued that Black voting after the Civil War had allowed Black people to “dominate” white southerners and virtually bankrupt the region and that virtuous white southerners had pushed them from the ballot box and “redeemed” the South. Contemporaries had identified the end of Reconstruction as 1870, with the readmission of Georgia to the United States. But Why the Solid South identified the end of Reconstruction as the end of Republican rule in each state.

In 1906, former steel baron James Ford Rhodes gave a date to that process. In his famous seven-volume history of the United States, he said that in April 1877, Hayes had ended Reconstruction by returning all the southern states to “home rule.” In his era, that was a political term referring to the return of power in the southern states to Democrats, but over time that phrase got tangled up with what did happen in April 1877.

During the chaos after the election, President U.S. Grant had ordered troops to protect the Republican governors in the Louisiana and South Carolina statehouses. When he took office, Hayes told Republican governors in South Carolina and Louisiana that he could no longer let federal troops protect their possession of their statehouses when their Democratic rivals had won the popular vote.

Under orders from Hayes, the troops guarding those statehouses marched away from their posts around the statehouses and back to their home stations in April 1877. They did not leave the states, although a number of troops would be deployed from southern bases later that year both to fight wars against Indigenous Americans in the West and to put down the 1877 Great Railroad Strike. That mobilization cut even further the few troops in the region: in 1876, the Department of the South had only about 1,586 men including officers. Nonetheless, southerners fought bitter congressional battles to get the few remaining troops out of the South in 1878–1879, and they lost.

The troops did not leave the U.S. South in 1877 as part of a deal to end Reconstruction.

It matters that we misremember that history. Generations of Americans have accepted the racist southern lawmakers’ version of our past by honoring the date they claimed to have “redeemed” the South. The reality of Reconstruction was not one in which Black voters bankrupted the region by taking tax dollars from white taxpayers to fund roads and schools and white voters stepped in to save things; it was the story of an attempt to establish racial equality and the undermining of that attempt with the establishment of a one-party state that benefited a few white men at the expense of everyone else.

Certain of today’s Republican leaders are engaged in an equally dramatic reworking of our history.

When Florida governor Ron DeSantis last March signed the law commonly called the “Don’t Say Gay” law, he justified it by its title: the “Parental Rights in Education” law. It restricted the ability of schoolteachers to mention sexual orientation or gender identity through grade 3, and opponents noted that its vagueness would lead teachers to self-censor.

Under the guise of protecting children, DeSantis echoed authoritarians like Hungary’s Victor Orbán and Russia’s Vladimir Putin, who claim that democracy’s principle that all people are equal—including sexual minorities—proves that democracy is incompatible with traditional religious values. Promising to take away LGBTQ Americans’ rights offered a way to consolidate a following to undermine democracy.

DeSantis sought to shore up his position by mandating a whitewashed version of a mythic past. At his request, in March the Florida legislature approved a law banning public schools or private businesses from teaching people to feel guilty for historical events in which members of their race behaved poorly, the Stop the Wrongs to Our Kids and Employees (Stop WOKE) Act.

In July the Florida legislature passed a law mandating that the books in Florida’s public school cannot be pornographic and must be suited to “student needs”; a state media specialist would be responsible for approving classroom materials. An older law makes distributing obscene or pornographic materials to minors a felony that could lead to up to 5 years in prison and a $5,000 fine. Unsure what books are acceptable and worried about penalties, school officials in at least two counties, Manatee and Duval, directed teachers to remove books from their classrooms or cover them until they can be reviewed.

In January, DeSantis set out to remake the New College of Florida, a public institution known for its progressive values and inclusion of LGBTQ students, into an activist Christian school. He replaced six of the college’s thirteen trustees with far-right allies and forced out the college president in favor of a political ally, giving him a salary of $699,000, more than double what his predecessor made.

On February 28, right-wing activist Christopher Rufo, the man behind the furor over Critical Race Theory and one of DeSantis’s appointees to the New School board, tweeted: “We will be shutting down low-performing, ideologically-captured academic departments and hiring new faculty. The student body will be recomposed over time: some current students will self-select out, others will graduate; we’ll recruit new students who are mission-aligned.”

Then, this Tuesday, the board voted to abolish diversity, equity and inclusion programs at the school. DeSantis has promised to defund all DEI programs at public colleges and universities in Florida.

The attempt to take over schools and reject the equality that lies at the foundation of liberal democracy is now moving toward the more general tenets of authoritarianism. This week, one Republican state senator proposed a bill that would require bloggers who write about DeSantis, his Cabinet officers, or members of the Florida legislature, to register with the state; another proposed outlawing the Democratic Party.

DeSantis and those like him are trying to falsify our history. They claim that the Founders established a nation based on traditional hierarchies, one in which traditional Christian rules were paramount. They insist that their increasingly draconian laws to privilege people like themselves are simply reestablishing our past values.

But that’s just wrong. Our Founders quite deliberately rejected traditional values and instead established a nation on the principle of equality. “We hold these truths to be self-evident,” they wrote, “that all men are created equal.” And when faced with the attempt of lawmakers in another era to reject that principle and make some men better than others, Abraham Lincoln called it out for what it was. “I should like to know,” he said, “if taking this old Declaration of Independence, which declares that all men are equal upon principle, and making exceptions to it, where will it stop?”

To accept DeSantis’s version of our history would be a perversion of our past and our principles.

But it is not unimaginable.

The troops did not leave the South in 1877.

[MDlaxfan76]

https://www.wfla.com/news/politics/flor ... the-state/

"Florida Sen. Jason Brodeur (R-Lake Mary) wants bloggers who write about Gov. Ron DeSantis, Attorney General Ashley Moody, and other members of the Florida executive cabinet or legislature to register with the state or face fines.

Brodeur’s proposal, Senate Bill 1316: Information Dissemination, would require any blogger writing about government officials to register with the Florida Office of Legislative Services or the Commission on Ethics.

In the bill, Brodeur wrote that those who write “an article, a story, or a series of stories,” about “the Governor, the Lieutenant Governor, a Cabinet officer, or any member of the Legislature,” and receives or will receive payment for doing so, must register with state offices within five days after the publication of an article that mentions an elected state official.

If another blog post is added to a blog, the blogger would then be required to submit monthly reports on the 10th of each month with the appropriate state office. They would not have to submit a report on months when no content is published."

See where this is going?

Good lord, where are our right wing 1st Amendment advocates?

[Seacoaster(1)]

https://www.wfla.com/news/politics/flor ... the-state/

"Florida Sen. Jason Brodeur (R-Lake Mary) wants bloggers who write about Gov. Ron DeSantis, Attorney General Ashley Moody, and other members of the Florida executive cabinet or legislature to register with the state or face fines.

Brodeur’s proposal, Senate Bill 1316: Information Dissemination, would require any blogger writing about government officials to register with the Florida Office of Legislative Services or the Commission on Ethics.

In the bill, Brodeur wrote that those who write “an article, a story, or a series of stories,” about “the Governor, the Lieutenant Governor, a Cabinet officer, or any member of the Legislature,” and receives or will receive payment for doing so, must register with state offices within five days after the publication of an article that mentions an elected state official.

If another blog post is added to a blog, the blogger would then be required to submit monthly reports on the 10th of each month with the appropriate state office. They would not have to submit a report on months when no content is published."

See where this is going?

Good lord, where are our right wing 1st Amendment advocates?

Right: “the constitutionalists.” In the squeeze between Authority and the First Amendment, guess what wins?

[Brooklyn]

https://assets.amuniversal.com/a9198ef0 ... a9545d.png



The new McCarthyism.

[SCLaxAttack]

https://www.wfla.com/news/politics/flor ... the-state/

"Florida Sen. Jason Brodeur (R-Lake Mary) wants bloggers who write about Gov. Ron DeSantis, Attorney General Ashley Moody, and other members of the Florida executive cabinet or legislature to register with the state or face fines.

Brodeur’s proposal, Senate Bill 1316: Information Dissemination, would require any blogger writing about government officials to register with the Florida Office of Legislative Services or the Commission on Ethics.

In the bill, Brodeur wrote that those who write “an article, a story, or a series of stories,” about “the Governor, the Lieutenant Governor, a Cabinet officer, or any member of the Legislature,” and receives or will receive payment for doing so, must register with state offices within five days after the publication of an article that mentions an elected state official.

If another blog post is added to a blog, the blogger would then be required to submit monthly reports on the 10th of each month with the appropriate state office. They would not have to submit a report on months when no content is published."

See where this is going?

Good lord, where are our right wing 1st Amendment advocates?

You know the answer. Only two counts.

[njbill]

I wonder if Ron the feeble minded (uh oh, am I going to get sued?) discussed his new law with Tucker first? Tucker, who now resides part time next-door to our old friend Pete in Big Mouth (English translation of Boca Grande), Florida, slanders people every night on his show. After about a week, he would be bankrupt if this new law takes effect.

Oh, and I wonder how Fox News would do in its lawsuit against Dominion if it were adjudicated under this proposed Florida law?

[SCLaxAttack]

I wonder if Ron the feeble minded (uh oh, am I going to get sued?) discussed his new law with Tucker first? Tucker, who now resides part time next-door to our old friend Pete in Big Mouth (English translation of Boca Grande), Florida, slanders people every night on his show. After about a week, he would be bankrupt if this new law takes effect.

Oh, and I wonder how Fox News would do in its lawsuit against Dominion if it were adjudicated under this proposed Florida law?

Conveniently the law is only against writers. Does Tuckrr know how to write?

[njbill]

Looks like it includes slander as well as libel.

https://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections ... ssion=2023

[MDlaxfan76]

Looks like it includes slander as well as libel.

https://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections ... ssion=2023

Quite the set of provisions, including the assumption that any anonymous source is false, and must produce name of anonymous source.

Only protects elected officials or political appointments but not civil servants or volunteers.

and that was just the beginning.

Hard to believe this could be upheld as constitutional, but we have an interesting supermajority at SCOTUS now.

[HooDat]

https://www.wfla.com/news/politics/flor ... the-state/

"Florida Sen. Jason Brodeur (R-Lake Mary) wants bloggers who write about Gov. Ron DeSantis, Attorney General Ashley Moody, and other members of the Florida executive cabinet or legislature to register with the state or face fines.

Brodeur’s proposal, Senate Bill 1316: Information Dissemination, would require any blogger writing about government officials to register with the Florida Office of Legislative Services or the Commission on Ethics.

In the bill, Brodeur wrote that those who write “an article, a story, or a series of stories,” about “the Governor, the Lieutenant Governor, a Cabinet officer, or any member of the Legislature,” and receives or will receive payment for doing so, must register with state offices within five days after the publication of an article that mentions an elected state official.

If another blog post is added to a blog, the blogger would then be required to submit monthly reports on the 10th of each month with the appropriate state office. They would not have to submit a report on months when no content is published."

See where this is going?

Good lord, where are our right wing 1st Amendment advocates?

You know the answer. Only two counts.

I get more disgusted with our political parties every . single . day

[njbill]

Looks like it includes slander as well as libel.

https://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections ... ssion=2023

Quite the set of provisions, including the assumption that any anonymous source is false, and must produce name of anonymous source.

Only protects elected officials or political appointments but not civil servants or volunteers.

and that was just the beginning.

Hard to believe this could be upheld as constitutional, but we have an interesting supermajority at SCOTUS now.

Yes, quite the law indeed. In fact, if one simply skimmed it, one could be excused if they mistakenly thought they were reading an Onion article.

[MDlaxfan76]

https://www.wfla.com/news/politics/flor ... the-state/

"Florida Sen. Jason Brodeur (R-Lake Mary) wants bloggers who write about Gov. Ron DeSantis, Attorney General Ashley Moody, and other members of the Florida executive cabinet or legislature to register with the state or face fines.

Brodeur’s proposal, Senate Bill 1316: Information Dissemination, would require any blogger writing about government officials to register with the Florida Office of Legislative Services or the Commission on Ethics.

In the bill, Brodeur wrote that those who write “an article, a story, or a series of stories,” about “the Governor, the Lieutenant Governor, a Cabinet officer, or any member of the Legislature,” and receives or will receive payment for doing so, must register with state offices within five days after the publication of an article that mentions an elected state official.

If another blog post is added to a blog, the blogger would then be required to submit monthly reports on the 10th of each month with the appropriate state office. They would not have to submit a report on months when no content is published."

See where this is going?

Good lord, where are our right wing 1st Amendment advocates?

You know the answer. Only two counts.

I get more disgusted with our political parties every . single . day

I know that such is your consistent gut response, but I think there's a substantive difference in what is happening in the two parties relative to their extremist wings.

I just wrote on another thread:

The right wing is in a frenzy to see who can most creatively demonstrate their willingness to put bigotry and hate into "law".

Seriously, "Gilead" seems like an impossibility in America, but perhaps it's not?


Many of the politicians in the GOP, both state and national, are in this frenzy. Really crazy stuff. Far, far from "conservative".

I don't see that sort of frenzy on the left side of the Dems, albeit certainly there's some performative signaling there as well at times.

[MDlaxfan76]

Looks like it includes slander as well as libel.

https://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections ... ssion=2023

Quite the set of provisions, including the assumption that any anonymous source is false, and must produce name of anonymous source.

Only protects elected officials or political appointments but not civil servants or volunteers.

and that was just the beginning.

Hard to believe this could be upheld as constitutional, but we have an interesting supermajority at SCOTUS now.

Yes, quite the law indeed. In fact, if one simply skimmed it, one could be excused if they mistakenly thought they were reading an Onion article.

That's a good description...if the reader didn't know better, it does come across as satire.
Not possible that anyone could mean it seriously...and yet, they're dead serious.

[cradleandshoot]

https://www.wfla.com/news/politics/flor ... the-state/

"Florida Sen. Jason Brodeur (R-Lake Mary) wants bloggers who write about Gov. Ron DeSantis, Attorney General Ashley Moody, and other members of the Florida executive cabinet or legislature to register with the state or face fines.

Brodeur’s proposal, Senate Bill 1316: Information Dissemination, would require any blogger writing about government officials to register with the Florida Office of Legislative Services or the Commission on Ethics.

In the bill, Brodeur wrote that those who write “an article, a story, or a series of stories,” about “the Governor, the Lieutenant Governor, a Cabinet officer, or any member of the Legislature,” and receives or will receive payment for doing so, must register with state offices within five days after the publication of an article that mentions an elected state official.

If another blog post is added to a blog, the blogger would then be required to submit monthly reports on the 10th of each month with the appropriate state office. They would not have to submit a report on months when no content is published."

See where this is going?

Good lord, where are our right wing 1st Amendment advocates?

You know the answer. Only two counts.

I get more disgusted with our political parties every . single . day

I know that such is your consistent gut response, but I think there's a substantive difference in what is happening in the two parties relative to their extremist wings.

I just wrote on another thread:

The right wing is in a frenzy to see who can most creatively demonstrate their willingness to put bigotry and hate into "law".

Seriously, "Gilead" seems like an impossibility in America, but perhaps it's not?


Many of the politicians in the GOP, both state and national, are in this frenzy. Really crazy stuff. Far, far from "conservative".

I don't see that sort of frenzy on the left side of the Dems, albeit certainly there's some performative signaling there as well at times.

How could you possibly see the frenzy on the left when you, the faux life long Republican that you claim to be is too busy blaming YOUR own party ? You don't reclaim any tiny bit of respectability until you publicly disavow your former party and become an independent voter. Tell us again why a lifelong Republican such as yourself would NEVER be allowed in the building to speak? it is way past time for you to be honest to this forum and finally quit the RepubliCON party. There is one thing that even YOU can't deny... YOUR PARTY hates you and everything a pasty faced FLP republiCON blue blood Rockefeller Republican stands for... .

[Farfromgeneva]

https://www.wfla.com/news/politics/flor ... the-state/

"Florida Sen. Jason Brodeur (R-Lake Mary) wants bloggers who write about Gov. Ron DeSantis, Attorney General Ashley Moody, and other members of the Florida executive cabinet or legislature to register with the state or face fines.

Brodeur’s proposal, Senate Bill 1316: Information Dissemination, would require any blogger writing about government officials to register with the Florida Office of Legislative Services or the Commission on Ethics.

In the bill, Brodeur wrote that those who write “an article, a story, or a series of stories,” about “the Governor, the Lieutenant Governor, a Cabinet officer, or any member of the Legislature,” and receives or will receive payment for doing so, must register with state offices within five days after the publication of an article that mentions an elected state official.

If another blog post is added to a blog, the blogger would then be required to submit monthly reports on the 10th of each month with the appropriate state office. They would not have to submit a report on months when no content is published."

See where this is going?

Good lord, where are our right wing 1st Amendment advocates?

You know the answer. Only two counts.

I get more disgusted with our political parties every . single . day

I know that such is your consistent gut response, but I think there's a substantive difference in what is happening in the two parties relative to their extremist wings.

I just wrote on another thread:

The right wing is in a frenzy to see who can most creatively demonstrate their willingness to put bigotry and hate into "law".

Seriously, "Gilead" seems like an impossibility in America, but perhaps it's not?


Many of the politicians in the GOP, both state and national, are in this frenzy. Really crazy stuff. Far, far from "conservative".

I don't see that sort of frenzy on the left side of the Dems, albeit certainly there's some performative signaling there as well at times.

How could you possibly see the frenzy on the left when you, the faux life long Republican that you claim to be is too busy blaming YOUR own party ? You don't reclaim any tiny bit of respectability until you publicly disavow your former party and become an independent voter. Tell us again why a lifelong Republican such as yourself would NEVER be allowed in the building to speak? it is way past time for you to be honest to this forum and finally quit the RepubliCON party. There is one thing that even YOU can't deny... YOUR PARTY hates you and everything a pasty faced FLP republiCON blue blood Rockefeller Republican stands for... .

Why do you insist on repeating this line of assault so redundantly. Do you think he doesn’t understand what your saying? Does it make you feel better? We’ve all read it more times than I’ve thought of Natalie Portman and in my head Im in my 8th or 10th virtual restraining order against me.

[cradleandshoot]

https://www.wfla.com/news/politics/flor ... the-state/

"Florida Sen. Jason Brodeur (R-Lake Mary) wants bloggers who write about Gov. Ron DeSantis, Attorney General Ashley Moody, and other members of the Florida executive cabinet or legislature to register with the state or face fines.

Brodeur’s proposal, Senate Bill 1316: Information Dissemination, would require any blogger writing about government officials to register with the Florida Office of Legislative Services or the Commission on Ethics.

In the bill, Brodeur wrote that those who write “an article, a story, or a series of stories,” about “the Governor, the Lieutenant Governor, a Cabinet officer, or any member of the Legislature,” and receives or will receive payment for doing so, must register with state offices within five days after the publication of an article that mentions an elected state official.

If another blog post is added to a blog, the blogger would then be required to submit monthly reports on the 10th of each month with the appropriate state office. They would not have to submit a report on months when no content is published."

See where this is going?

Good lord, where are our right wing 1st Amendment advocates?

You know the answer. Only two counts.

I get more disgusted with our political parties every . single . day

I know that such is your consistent gut response, but I think there's a substantive difference in what is happening in the two parties relative to their extremist wings.

I just wrote on another thread:

The right wing is in a frenzy to see who can most creatively demonstrate their willingness to put bigotry and hate into "law".

Seriously, "Gilead" seems like an impossibility in America, but perhaps it's not?


Many of the politicians in the GOP, both state and national, are in this frenzy. Really crazy stuff. Far, far from "conservative".

I don't see that sort of frenzy on the left side of the Dems, albeit certainly there's some performative signaling there as well at times.

How could you possibly see the frenzy on the left when you, the faux life long Republican that you claim to be is too busy blaming YOUR own party ? You don't reclaim any tiny bit of respectability until you publicly disavow your former party and become an independent voter. Tell us again why a lifelong Republican such as yourself would NEVER be allowed in the building to speak? it is way past time for you to be honest to this forum and finally quit the RepubliCON party. There is one thing that even YOU can't deny... YOUR PARTY hates you and everything a pasty faced FLP republiCON blue blood Rockefeller Republican stands for... .

Why do you insist on repeating this line of assault so redundantly. Do you think he doesn’t understand what your saying? Does it make you feel better? We’ve all read it more times than I’ve thought of Natalie Portman and in my head Im in my 8th or 10th virtual restraining order against me.

We all read your never ending posts in your attempts to enlighten us how the high stakes world of finance works. You praddle on and on when you could easily condense your point to 2 paragraphs, but you never do. Why do you insist on repeating these never ending boring posts? I'll keep calling MD lax out for as long as it takes. He has to finally step away from the party he has contempt for. I have read ad nauseum his constant claim to be a life long Republican. I have yet to ever read a single post by him that makes him come across as a conservative republican. If calling him out bothers you, then that is your problem. MD is a big boy and can defend himself. You would be better served to use your intelligence to frame your posts where you get to the point and make them interesting and understandable. I have tried many times to read your posts where you get knee deep in the nuts and bolts of your craft. You tend to go off on too many different tangents that are fascinating and boring as hell all at the same time. Keep it simple is advise you might want to think about. MD lax and I will always butt heads. IMO you can't be a lifelong member of a political party or any other organization that you constantly are at loggerheads with. There should come a time when you realize the marriage no longer works for you. Irreconcilable differences happen and you move on, unless your happy with the dysfunctional relationship?