Slashdot Mirror
Republicans Propose Bill To Impose Fines For Live-Streaming From House Floor (digitaltrends.com)
Likely in response to the 25-hour sit-in staged by Democrats earlier in 2016, protesting the lack of gun reform, House Speaker Paul Ryan has proposed new fines and ethics violations for House members that take photo and video from the floor of the chamber. Digital Trends reports: According to Bloomberg, the first violation will net violators a $500 fine, which will be deducted from member's paychecks. Second and subsequent violations will carry a steeper fine of $2,500 per incident. Not only that, any other incidents that may disrupt decorum could be sent to the House Committee on Ethics, potentially leading to sanctions. "These changes will help ensure that order and decorum are preserved in the House of Representatives so lawmakers can do the people's work," a spokeswoman for Ryan said in a statement. Taking photo or video had already been prohibited on the floor, but was never enforced. But after the sit-in, led by John Lewis (D-Ga.), Ryan called a recess, effectively ending the C-SPAN broadcast. That is when Democrats used their phones and took to social media. "The imposition of a fine could potentially violate both the First Amendment, as well as, the Speech and Debate clause, which creates extensive protections for speech by legislators," Chip Gibbons, who serves as the policy and legislative counsel for the Bill of Rights Defense Committee and Defending Dissent Foundation, told Digital Trends in an email. According to Gibbons, courts have already found that under certain circumstances, recording footage does fall under speech. "Given the public interest -- and inherently political nature of the act -- it seems likely that videos, photography, and live streaming from the House floor would also be found to be speech, and protected by the First Amendment," Gibbons said.
There should also be a bill to throw all the Democrats in jail for being corrupt!
Would you please vote this asshole out of office.
That'd be the legislature: as unaccountable, secretive and corrupt as ever.
...who gets to fine C-SPAN?
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Gee, I wonder why the Republicans don't want the American people to be able to see what's happening in our government.
Ryan is wrong, but for the right reasons.
They should be broadcast, for all to see ... on the Comedy Channel .
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
This makes little sense to me. Representatives are both fairly wealthy, as well as well paid.
Nobody wants to pay a fine of $500, let alone $2500, but it won't really deter somebody who feels passionate about what they are doing. Would John Lewis really say, "I was going to live stream this major political event, but whoa, that .287% of my salary is way too much to risk. That's like almost a full day of wages for me... well, maybe half a day. That's way too expensive."
I'm guessing there is something else going on here. There is either some formal procedure (a fine equals a sanction, which carries some procedural connotation), this is targeting somebody else (like a visitor to the capital), or there is something entirely different going on and Bloomberg is missing the real goal all this.
they could've stopped right there
"These changes will help ensure that order and decorum are preserved in the House of Representatives so lawmakers can do the people's work,"
Yes, comrade kommissar! The People's work must be done!
... House Speaker Paul Ryan has proposed new fines and ethics violations for House members ...
I find it very hard to imagine how this could be an ethics violation, unless one considers the possibility that members of the House don't understand what the word "ethics" means -- or "violation" for that matter, given some members beliefs on rape.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
"These changes will help ensure that order and decorum are preserved in the House of Representatives so lawmakers can do the people's work," - actually I'm pretty sure it enables them to do anything but the people's work. It's also a violation of Federal law to make involuntary deductions from a paycheck except for taxes, garnishments or other court ordered deductions.
I miss slashdot being free of politics, and covering linux stuff instead.
Wow, you ate an idiot.
So you're fine with the freedom of speech being infringed upon, so long as you disagree with the people whose rights are being taken away? It seems like that's only serving to validate the concerns about social justice.
You know, "making Congress into a stage for grandstanding" includes shutting down the government and refusing to pay the country's debts just to spite a President from the other party.
Are you calling fnj a cannibal?
Since we have C-SPAN, we've already established a tradition that the people have a right to see what their elected officials are doing. Let's ponder that...our...elected...political...representatives. Paul Ryan is proposing that broadcasting their activities in their place of work is unethical unless they explicitly are OK with being watched at that time via C-SPAN. He is asking that we not be allowed to observe and evaluate their activities; activities that we are paying for.
Anyone who might suggest that this is in the interest of government secrecy should be dismissed out of hand since we already have laws protecting classified information which could be amply used against anyone who broadcast a sensitive or classified debate.
I am as moderate as they come, and I do not believe that this is a blatant overstep of authority. There are many reasons why Congress can choose to not allow recording of their proceedings. The federal judiciary does not allow it, just to provide comparison. Now, whether this is being invoked for political convenience or as a reasoned policy, is another matter.
Sometimes, you should not wish for everything to be broadcast, recorded, and open for all to see. You may find that some things get done faster, and better, when they are not being aired for all to hear. I could argue that congressional matters, being broadcast for all to see, has resulted in congressmen playing to the cameras, holding hearings that are often public theater, taking extreme positions for publicity, voting nonsensically and against better judgement so that their constituents see them doing so. A lot more work could be done behind closed doors, where representatives don't feel the need to be so extreme for the cameras, and so shallow on real issues.
Careful what you wish for.
...thanks Trump voters.
Seriously.
First, it's explicit in the Constitution that "Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member." Whatever rules a House likes for its proceedings are the rules, and whatever punishment it designates for violating them is the punishment. The case law on that goes on to state that this means that the courts may not hear a case on such matters; no Federal court has the authority to even hear a case on the rules, much less get to the point that it can rule whether something is free speech or not.
Second, the Speech or Debate Clause only protects members form being held responsible "in any other Place"; their own House is perfectly allowed to hold them responsible for what they say. In accordance with the previous bit.
Third, this isn't a law, it's a proposed rule of the House, in the decidedly non-public forum of the floor of the House. The First Amendment doesn't remotely apply, at all, either literally or in any of its court-extended meanings. Even if the courts were allowed to rule on the rule (see the first problem), current precedent would fall on the side of the rulemakers.
"Refusing to pay the country's debts", even if we accept this excessively tendentious description of not creating more debt, isn't something that the Republican congress did "just to spite a President" – it was to further their own party's policy agenda. Calling it "just spite" is intellectually dishonest. (But then, we're talking about politics, so there you go.)
You can't livestream from a courtroom for example, and it will probably get you contempt of court and thrown in jail.
Anyway they have C-SPAN, and anyone immature enough to livestream as a Congressman deserves to be thrown out of office.
have their cell phones on the floor! When we visited DC this summer we were not allowed to take our cell phones into the viewing gallery while the senate was in session. Just so happens they were voting on the Zika funding bill the FIRST time. Both parties were acting like little 2 year olds! They should all be thrown out and we should all be thrown out and we should re-vote for EVERY one of them!
The Truth is a Virus!!!
Congressmen playing to the press has been a tradition since day one. Did you know that by tradition they grant themselves the privilege to publish a Congressional Record of what was said in session which need bear no resemblance to what was actually said? In one study the Government Printing Office concluded that almost half of the Record contents had not been spoken on the floor. http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1639&context=ealr
I would far rather see our Representatives take the responsibility of doing their grandstanding in person to get on camera than allow them to hide their grandstanding in the shadows.
Why elide "social justice"? Don't want to talk about the pathetic BLM pandering scene your congressional shit birds live streamed from the floor?
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
Why should I have to listen to the barks and clapping of a trained seal put in Congress?
I removed "social justice" because it didn't apply in the context. I was talking about the same behavior you claim to be against, but are fine with when it's your precious little tribe doing it.
Also they're not "my" congressional shit birds, because I'm not a Democrat, or a liberal. But I have to say that you're behaving an awful lot like the kind of whiny little tumblrite that makes other whiny little tumblrites shriek "essjaydubya!" as if it actually meant something.
Naming yourself after the tailhook scandal was just too on the nose.
Idiots, they are going to harm their own interests in the future when they get stymied by their own rules...
"Grab them by the pussy" -- President of the United States of America
NOW, under this totally politically biased issue - we go back to the 'good old days' of hidden, smoke-filled rooms with absolutely NO visibility (to the PEOPLE) of the actions taken in the hallowed halls of our grand democracy - a SUPPOSEDLY OPEN AND TRANSPARENT body of people dealing with our country's legislative processes - where the decisions being made are too 'sensitive' or too 'critical' to be made public can be taken - - - in OUR NAME - - - to determine the laws and actions enacted into our nation's legal system.
WHAT are these idiots foaming at the mouth about ? Does it have something to do with the fact that C-Span can be redacted / edited / censored so as to withhold from the American People what is actually happening in OUR government, BUT real-life phone-videos actually show WHAT IS REALLY HAPPENING? The REALITIES of the legislative process is now being by-passed so as to CONCEAL what is actually happening in our legislative bodies by making personal phone-video documentation a CRIMINAL OFFENSE - punishable by fines that threaten the livelihood of those trying to actually SHOW WHAT IS GOING ON !
OK, so we all know (or at least those that follow these issues) that any legislation that gets passed is basically a compromise whereby all parties are equally disgusted and disappointed with the resulting bill - at least LET US KNOW WHY THIS IS THE RESULT ! ! !
Hell, we are the culpable, gullible, and generally emotionally driven individuals that put these power-mongers in office, but at least we SHOULD be able to see what is being done, how it is being done, and what compromises are being made to get any type of legislation passed that affect's our country.
Jeez, even I know that there are some (ok, maybe a lot of) issues that ARE critically sensitive, and shouldn't be made public - as in national defense and anti-terrorism issues, but the day-to-day procedures of our government have no business being hidden from the public.
Every year that goes by, with the political back-stabbing and corruption, reinforces my long-held belief that ANYBODY that WANTS to be in politics should automatically be disqualified - and our political arena should be staffed in the same way that juries are selected - - - if you want in, then GO HOME - but if you are (reluctantly) persuaded to serve, then do your duty as you would if you were drafted into the military for a given term - and then get the hell out.
Is it any wonder that the "NONE OF THE ABOVE" candidate - Pres-elect Donald Trump - beat out the establishment in this year's national election ?
redneck geek
At least they haven't threatened anybody with jail time or the rack. Your free speech is still fine ... so long as you pay the fine.
Pay what debts? Shutting down the government is usually grandstanding about incurring even MORE debt. Sometimes this country manages to narrow or eliminate the deficit, but the debt is never paid down. It's out of control.
Trump did all but endorse another Paul in his primary race, but unfortunately Ryan won. Hopefully Trump has enough plants in the house that can pressurize Ryan to go w/ him
So . . . Preventing Congress-critters from live streaming our government in action will somehow protect freedom of speech for US subjectscitizens?
Not by itself. But trying to block Congress-critters from using protests and free speech certainly doesn't protect free speech.
This is about stopping the dissenters moving their protest to social media. Governments frequently censor their public record, meaning that if one is not in the public gallery, the true dialog is lost. Then again, politicians should not be subjected to political correctness or perpetual publicity like a Twitter celebrity, those barely competent civil servants have a job to do. Politicians pandering to a camera or being second-guessed by the audience does not benefit the legislative process.
Republicans loves the 2nd amendment
The first one, however, not so much...
Ryan is a cancer. You can't "fix" a cancer to "act nice". You have to cut it out or nuke it.
Of course they don't, they know it's unconstitutional and it's only the chance the public finds out that stops them. Hence anyone who reports the truth is fake liberal media. The stage is set.
Trump should have appointed him to head OMB, and gotten rid of him that way. It would have been win-win: Ryan could have focused on the budget and numbers, what he likes best, and leave the house policymaking, and Trump could have had one of his allies like Chris Collins become speaker, since that guy is a point man b/w Trump and Congress
Not only that, any other incidents that may disrupt decorum could be sent to the House Committee on Ethics, potentially leading to sanctions.
That just leaves things WIDE open. "He's not wearing a flag pin! That's disrupting decorum!"
These a*holes have no ethics, other than smash & grab, fuck the other guy.
Who's freedom of speech is being violated here? They're still perfectly free to say whatever they want, and they'll have exactly as large an audience as they would have when the first amendment was added to the constitution. Their freedom of speech does not require your personal ability to listen.
And oddly enough, the first amendment doesn't cover the freedom to record nor broadcast whatever the hell you want to whomever you want whenever you want, given that those technologies didn't exist at the time.
Not to mention, nothing (that I know of) is preventing them from just reiterating the things that were said once they're out of the room, barring the odd thing that's discussed under secrecy status for one reason or another.
Whether or not banning personal live streams on the floor is a good idea is definitely an open question, but it doesn't really have any connection to free speech (other than free speech being the go-to of anyone who doesn't like something even vaguely related to a communications technology.)
Who's freedom of speech is being violated here? They're still perfectly free to say whatever they want...
The "freedom of speech" is being infringed when you tell people where and when they can do it, or when you say, "it can't be made public". Obviously those things can be restricted in some cases, e.g. you can't share classified information, but adding new restrictions on the freedom of speech shouldn't be taken lightly. It certainly shouldn't be done by one political party in order to shut up their opposition-- which is exactly what the first amendment was written to prevent.
And oddly enough, the first amendment doesn't cover the freedom to record nor broadcast whatever the hell you want
What, are you retarded? They didn't have recorders or broadcasting systems when the first amendment was written. However, they did having these things called "printing presses", and they explicitly put into the first amendment that you were allowed to use those to "broadcast" whatever the hell you want. I'm going to stop arguing with you, though, because you're obviously an idiot.
...just get the bat out and hit everyone with fines and sanctions that disagrees. Ryan should spend his time better on actual business. Never saw a House that inactive as under the spineless Ryan. Seems as that his agenda has only one point: make sure nothing gets done.
These changes will help ensure that order and decorum are preserved in the House of Representatives so lawmakers can do the people's work," a spokeswoman for Ryan said
That's rich. In case you'd forgotten, the incident that caused this is when The House went into recess rather than work on more legislation, and the minority party thought they ought to stay and get more work done. The current Congress ended up being the 3rd least productive in history (being edged out for worst only by the previous two).
So the FIFY here is "These changes will help ensure order and decorum are preserved in the House of Representatives' home districts so lawmakers can continue to not do the people's work".
The United States government was not supposed to be a black box.
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
http://praxeology.net/OsamaPalpatine.bmp