GregDewar.com

After firing off a wild-eyed posting at the President, it's time to take aim at another group of folks who tick me off - Those Darn Liberals And Their So-Called Reforms.

Today's example is how the self-appointed "reform" crowd can use the word "reform" and it's compound variant, "campaign finance reform," to try and shut down online press outlets they don't like. Our example comes from my hometown, San Francisco.

A SF county supervisor, Chris Daly, has decided he's so upset with some local news/blog's opinions that he's decided to retaliate by slurring them with a hit, accusing them of first being a campaign committee, not a news and opinion website, then accusing them of "not filing" required reports and disclosures.

If you're not intimately familiar with San Francisco politics, you're probably not aware of Supervisor Daly's reputation, first as the enfant terrible of the Board of Supervisors (his use of profanity and shouting is legendary amongst the locals), and second as a self-titled "progressive" who champions all sorts of causes. While I've only met him once, and he seemed like a nice guy, when I read about things like this, it makes me wonder.

Why? Because this latest dust-up is not the first time we've had the suggestion that the city needs to get into the business of regulating any blog, anywhere, that might mention local politics. (well, sort of, and sort of not, as Chris Nolan later pointed out)

It's also not the first time that someone in the press or politics has used the "it's not bad but it better not be" slam, that implies illegal activity when there is none. It's a classic of spin and PR: make something that's not illegal seem "wrong" using guilt by association and "what might be" and "what better not."

Put it another way - you're sitting there eating an apple. I tell the press "See that person, they're eating an apple. That's ok, but it better not be a stolen apple - otherwise they could go to jail for stealing apples, as we all know apple thieves can be put in jail for up to 30 days. So that apple better be legal and free of any taint of drugs or ties to mob crime."

Yeah, that was my thought too.

Ironically, it was Chris Daly himself who was the target of such a slur, from the SF Chronicle, who wrote a long artilce about his own blog earlier this year.

See the irony? Yeah, I did too. Supervisor Daly didn't, but hey! he's a busy guy, and has a lot of folks to yell at. Folks like the San Francisco Sentinel's publisher, Pat Murphy.

For the inside crowd or those curious for another take on local events, the Sentinel is a fun read. There's no denying the site bears the point of view of its proprietor, Pat Murphy, but then again, he's never hid that fact. No one expects the Sentinel to be 1000% neutral in local goings-on - but them again if it were it'd be no fun to read.

And, like a lot of people, Pat and his crew have had evolving viewpoints on a lot of issues and personalities, including Chris Daly. Once a big supporter of Daly's, the site of late has taken a more critical view of some issues the Supervisor supports, and a more holistic view of Mayor Newsom. This apparently has been what has upset Daly the most - and he's send off some tough-worded emails to the Sentinel expressing his anger - and threatening to use City resources to fight him.

Now, the Sentinel does make things a bit difficult for itself, only because when the site needed to raise money to keep the site online, they had a lot of local politicos help organize a low-dollar event to keep it afloat. I say this only because it could appear that these folks were "buying" good press.

But a closer inspection doesn't bear out such a conspiracy. Most local politcos like the site, and didn't want to see it go away due to financial problems. Plus, at the amounts we're talking about, it's highly unlikely that Mr. Murphy's soul was "bought," as has been implied. It'd be like suggesting that local politcos were trying to influence the SF Examiner because they all bought a daily subscription to the paper.

This whole situation shows just what can go wrong once government decides that anything related to politics has to be heavily regulated by...politicians. It's also an example of how people in power will want to use their resources to keep opposing views out of the public eye. Many people stood up and defended Daly's right to "blog" directly to his constituents - it seems odd that now he's upset someone publishing something online that disagrees with him - online.

Political organizations and PACs that are already regulated, who publish things online, are simply that - they're already regulated by existing rules, which are unevenly enforced. But to start suggesting that anyone with a computer who tries to make their news and gossip site into something bigger is somehow a "PAC" and to threaten intrusive regulations, goes against what San Francisco has long stood for - freedom of speech.

Surely Mr. Daly's power base is intact enough that he can take a few missives from time to time from a simple website.

Surely, Mr. Daly is secure enough in his own standing with the press and his constituents that he can take a few barbs, not nearly as vitriolic as the one's he's hurled.

Surely he is not one of the growing number of politicians whose standing is so shaky, they can't take any criticism or suggestions that they are not 100% perfect Instruments of God's Will.

Surely.

© 2003-2006 Greg Dewar | All Rights Reserved | Originally Published at www.schadelmann.com