Sounds like they previously banned short-term rentals but had trouble enforcing, thus this new regulation.
> The coastal town of about 7,000 residents has prohibited rentals under 30 days since January 2019, but is now making simply posting an ad for one of these illegal properties a punishable offense. Each day an advertisement remains online counts as a new violation, according to the new ordinance that was passed unanimously on Oct. 21, and the fines escalate sharply: $1,500 for a first offense, $3,000 for a second violation within the same year, and $5,000 for each additional violation.
> Sausalito code enforcement officer Justin Goger-Malo, who took the position in February of this year, explained why this change was so crucial at a City Council meeting on Tuesday. Previously, enforcing proved to be a frustrating bottleneck as property owners disputed citations. “We’ll send out a citation, the property owner will then send us a screenshot which says, ‘Look, here it says my account’s been suspended and I canceled two reservations,’” Goger-Malo said. “It’s very easy to fake something like that.” Goger-Malo described working through six or seven cases simultaneously and receiving various forms of pushback from property owners claiming they had stopped short-term rentals or switched to longer terms.
> The advertising ban eliminates this enforcement gap. “It’s going to allow us to say, ‘You advertised it. We see that it says there’s been a rental completed,’” said Goger-Malo. “Even if you’ve canceled that rental, we now have the means going forward to be able to take some of our time back in investigating these claims and say it’s the advertising that you’re being fined for now.”
Then that person is making three felonies: fraud, perjury, and frameup. AirBNB requires a lot of verification, you can't just use Tor, protonmail, and a VoIP number to list a place. That person would leave such a digital trail that would be easy to find with a subpeona. And both AirBNB and the person framed have every incentive to help with that investigation.
Why would AirBNB have an incentive to help with the investigation? They want the law gone, which means they want people to hate the law and demand it be repealed.
Only if the the state worker has a subpoena signed by a judge. But it sounds like these are code enforcement people, which are generally just city employees rather than full law enforcement.
You’re describing a presumably-desired outcome here but not why you think this particular limitation would be overturned as a free speech violation. On what basis would you expect that ruling to occur?
"The Supreme Court issued several opinions supporting that use of the Commerce Clause. Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964), ruled that Congress could regulate a business that served mostly interstate travelers."
Heart of Atlanta Motel made the argument that people who wanted to rent a room were neither goods nor services which crossed state lines, and argued they had a constitutional right of association so should be free to racially discriminate.
"An Ohio farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat to feed animals on his own farm. The U.S. government had established limits on wheat production, based on the acreage owned by a farmer, to stabilize wheat prices and supplies. Filburn grew more than was permitted and so was ordered to pay a penalty. In response, he said that because his wheat was not sold, it could not be regulated as commerce, let alone "interstate" commerce (described in the Constitution as "Commerce ... among the several states"). The Supreme Court disagreed ... The Court decided that Filburn's wheat-growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for animal feed on the open market, which is traded nationally, is thus interstate, and is therefore within the scope of the Commerce Clause. Although Filburn's relatively small amount of production of more wheat than he was allotted would not affect interstate commerce itself, the cumulative actions of thousands of other farmers like Filburn would become substantial. Therefore, the Court decided that the federal government could regulate Filburn's production."
"In a 2005 medical marijuana case, Gonzales v. Raich, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the argument that the ban on growing medical marijuana for personal use exceeded the powers of Congress under the Commerce Clause. Even if no goods were sold or transported across state lines, the Court found that there could be an indirect effect on interstate commerce and relied heavily on a New Deal case, Wickard v. Filburn, which held that the government may regulate personal cultivation and consumption of crops because the aggregate effect of individual consumption could have an indirect effect on interstate commerce."
You can already limit speech in america provided the regulation (1) advances a compelling interest
(2) through narrowly tailored means and (3) does not excessively burden the
expression or action relative to the interest advanced, i.e. be proportional
A good instance where we might draw the line differently despite current first amendment norms is lobbying.
Lobbying, at its core, is just speech. Industry leaders and representatives go to meetings (public or private) to talk to congressmen. Thus lobbying has been affirmed as protected speech in our constitutional law
The problem is money changes access. And sure we can pursue contribution limits (which is generally constitutional) but lobbyists don't actually care about those -- they welcome the ability to save money. The problem is that they are just so well-connected their speech has disproportionate weight
So you could argue limiting their speech advances a compelling interest, but you'd have to think about other factors as well
It is just true that every liberty and right has limits, otherwise they could cut the public interest or other individual rights. This is true even in the US which orients itself as largely pro-speech sovereign relative to other states
Sounds like they previously banned short-term rentals but had trouble enforcing, thus this new regulation.
> The coastal town of about 7,000 residents has prohibited rentals under 30 days since January 2019, but is now making simply posting an ad for one of these illegal properties a punishable offense. Each day an advertisement remains online counts as a new violation, according to the new ordinance that was passed unanimously on Oct. 21, and the fines escalate sharply: $1,500 for a first offense, $3,000 for a second violation within the same year, and $5,000 for each additional violation.
> Sausalito code enforcement officer Justin Goger-Malo, who took the position in February of this year, explained why this change was so crucial at a City Council meeting on Tuesday. Previously, enforcing proved to be a frustrating bottleneck as property owners disputed citations. “We’ll send out a citation, the property owner will then send us a screenshot which says, ‘Look, here it says my account’s been suspended and I canceled two reservations,’” Goger-Malo said. “It’s very easy to fake something like that.” Goger-Malo described working through six or seven cases simultaneously and receiving various forms of pushback from property owners claiming they had stopped short-term rentals or switched to longer terms.
> The advertising ban eliminates this enforcement gap. “It’s going to allow us to say, ‘You advertised it. We see that it says there’s been a rental completed,’” said Goger-Malo. “Even if you’ve canceled that rental, we now have the means going forward to be able to take some of our time back in investigating these claims and say it’s the advertising that you’re being fined for now.”
So what happens if someone posts a fraudulent listing of one’s property and then reports it to the city?
Then that person is making three felonies: fraud, perjury, and frameup. AirBNB requires a lot of verification, you can't just use Tor, protonmail, and a VoIP number to list a place. That person would leave such a digital trail that would be easy to find with a subpeona. And both AirBNB and the person framed have every incentive to help with that investigation.
Frameup is a big fucking deal.
Why would AirBNB have an incentive to help with the investigation? They want the law gone, which means they want people to hate the law and demand it be repealed.
Wouldn't they be liable for not helping law enforcement?
Only if the the state worker has a subpoena signed by a judge. But it sounds like these are code enforcement people, which are generally just city employees rather than full law enforcement.
Isn’t this basically restricting speech? Especially if you’re advertising to people across states, I would think this violates interstate commerce.
You’re describing a presumably-desired outcome here but not why you think this particular limitation would be overturned as a free speech violation. On what basis would you expect that ruling to occur?
No. It's not considered interstate commerce when one purchases goods or services in a state one is visiting. No goods or services crossed state lines.
Not at all true. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause
"The Supreme Court issued several opinions supporting that use of the Commerce Clause. Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964), ruled that Congress could regulate a business that served mostly interstate travelers."
Heart of Atlanta Motel made the argument that people who wanted to rent a room were neither goods nor services which crossed state lines, and argued they had a constitutional right of association so should be free to racially discriminate.
The Interstate Commerce Clause even applies to crops you grow for yourself, which aren't on the market. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
"An Ohio farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat to feed animals on his own farm. The U.S. government had established limits on wheat production, based on the acreage owned by a farmer, to stabilize wheat prices and supplies. Filburn grew more than was permitted and so was ordered to pay a penalty. In response, he said that because his wheat was not sold, it could not be regulated as commerce, let alone "interstate" commerce (described in the Constitution as "Commerce ... among the several states"). The Supreme Court disagreed ... The Court decided that Filburn's wheat-growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for animal feed on the open market, which is traded nationally, is thus interstate, and is therefore within the scope of the Commerce Clause. Although Filburn's relatively small amount of production of more wheat than he was allotted would not affect interstate commerce itself, the cumulative actions of thousands of other farmers like Filburn would become substantial. Therefore, the Court decided that the federal government could regulate Filburn's production."
This interpretation also applies to medical marijuana, quoting again https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause
"In a 2005 medical marijuana case, Gonzales v. Raich, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the argument that the ban on growing medical marijuana for personal use exceeded the powers of Congress under the Commerce Clause. Even if no goods were sold or transported across state lines, the Court found that there could be an indirect effect on interstate commerce and relied heavily on a New Deal case, Wickard v. Filburn, which held that the government may regulate personal cultivation and consumption of crops because the aggregate effect of individual consumption could have an indirect effect on interstate commerce."
This is bonkers. Thanks for posting it.
If only constitutional interpretation were that straightforward.
God don't you love it when techies try to play lawyer? No. No. No. No. No.
The city has made short term rentals illegal. You think your have a first amendment right to sell heroin on Facebook marketplace?
The rental itself may be illegal. The speech around it may not be.
You can already limit speech in america provided the regulation (1) advances a compelling interest (2) through narrowly tailored means and (3) does not excessively burden the expression or action relative to the interest advanced, i.e. be proportional
A good instance where we might draw the line differently despite current first amendment norms is lobbying.
Lobbying, at its core, is just speech. Industry leaders and representatives go to meetings (public or private) to talk to congressmen. Thus lobbying has been affirmed as protected speech in our constitutional law
The problem is money changes access. And sure we can pursue contribution limits (which is generally constitutional) but lobbyists don't actually care about those -- they welcome the ability to save money. The problem is that they are just so well-connected their speech has disproportionate weight
So you could argue limiting their speech advances a compelling interest, but you'd have to think about other factors as well
It is just true that every liberty and right has limits, otherwise they could cut the public interest or other individual rights. This is true even in the US which orients itself as largely pro-speech sovereign relative to other states
No.