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.
So much for transparency....
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
They've done it before... in fact that's exactly what this seems to be about.
They want the ability to impose a media blackout should something happen in the chamber they want to keep under wraps.
=Smidge=
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.