[SGVLUG] Pasadena Ripoff

[Christopher Smith]

This is a little different than the LA case. While the first amendment
provides a lot of freedoms, it doesn't cover the right to make money off of
speech, and the government has lots of freedom to regulate businesses. As
long as the interference is mostly in the form of fees and it is limited to
blogs that are generating revenue, I think they have solid footing.

Where there is probably a more complicated issue is jurisdictional claims. I
mean, to what extent is a blog "in Pasadena"? Either way, I think the
solution to this problem is a simple cost/benefit analysis: if you can make
enough to cover the fees, then go ahead and pay them. If not, remove the ads
and move to a free or near free hosting service.

On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 7:19 AM, serross <serross at ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> This should fall under the First Amendment law. The ACLU filed a suit
> against the city because (after much threats) they tried to regulate the
> people that put advertising on your door. They ran from this confrontation.
> The plaintive was some woman on the west side that made the claim, that it
> was her 1st Amendment right to distribute fliers for the 'Senior Center'
> (never saw any on the east side of Pasa). Anyway, I would tell them it is a
> free speech issue and therefor is a litgatable issue and that the city would
> have top spend lots of money defending such an ordinance.
>
>
>
> juanslayton at dslextreme.com wrote:
>
>  # Now the city of Pasadena is claiming that this is a 'home-based
>> # business'
>>
>> \# Has anyone else here dealt with something like this?
>>
>> Seems to me Google is the real business here, and the ones who stand to
>> lose if local cities start this kind of nonsense.  And they have
>> lawyers....
>>
>> John
>>
>

-- 
Chris
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.sgvlug.net/pipermail/sgvlug/attachments/20080905/999e4c6e/attachment.html