It turns out that the SF Board of Supervisors had to pass two pieces of legislation, the one that many bloggers (myself included) complained about because of potential infringements on free speech, and another version that supposedly excluded blogs from those groups targeted by the legislation.
The two versions were necessary because of procedural grounds and the time constraints imposed by needing to get the bill passed by the Ethics Commission. That certainly sounds like a reasonable explanation, when the revised bill would be substituted for the problematic bill. My concern is two-fold:
1) What prevents a municipality from enacting this kind of legislation in the first place?
2) The possibility always exists for a screwup and the revision fails to get adopted. As someone who deals with legislation on a regular basis from numerous states, there are regularly situations where municipalities screw up revisions, enact duplicate sections, or otherwise introduce legislation that is in error that isn't caught until the end of the session. Law revisors usually catch these problems before they become trouble (amending the bills before they're enacted), but occasionally these bills do manage to get passed and require additional legislation to cure the defects.
While it seems that SF is honestly looking to substitute the flawed bill with a revised version, I worry that some other jurisdiction will come forth with a bill that does seek to impose restrictions on bloggers rights to political speech.
No comments:
Post a Comment