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 $2,500 per incident. Not only that, any other incidents that may disrupt decorum could be sent to the House Committee on Ethics, potentially leading to sanctions. "These changes will help ensure that order and decorum are preserved in the House of Representatives so lawmakers can do the people's work," a spokeswoman for Ryan said in a statement. Taking photo or video had already been prohibited on the floor, but was never enforced. But after the sit-in, led by John Lewis (D-Ga.), Ryan called a recess, effectively ending the C-SPAN broadcast. That is when Democrats used their phones and took to social media. "The imposition of a fine could potentially violate both the First Amendment, as well as, the Speech and Debate clause, which creates extensive protections for speech by legislators," Chip Gibbons, who serves as the policy and legislative counsel for the Bill of Rights Defense Committee and Defending Dissent Foundation, told Digital Trends in an email. According to Gibbons, courts have already found that under certain circumstances, recording footage does fall under speech. "Given the public interest -- and inherently political nature of the act -- it seems likely that videos, photography, and live streaming from the House floor would also be found to be speech, and protected by the First Amendment," Gibbons said.
That'd be the legislature: as unaccountable, secretive and corrupt as ever.
Ryan is wrong, but for the right reasons.
They should be broadcast, for all to see ... on the Comedy Channel .
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
they could've stopped right there
I suppose they get to turn off CSPAN when they're about to engage in some particularly egregious bipartisan tyranny?
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
... 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. . . .
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=
Slashdot has never not had politics. It has, however, always had people bemoaning the loss of Good Ole Days that never existed.
The proposed fine is $500 for the first incident, and $2500 for subsequent incidents. You'd be suprised how many "incidents" can be generated from one incident.
Even assume that's not going to happen, it's a pretty disturbing proposal, especially considering it seems to be in response to this:
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.
So Democrats staged a public protest. Republicans shut down the broadcast. Democrats resorted to broadcasting online by streaming from their phones. Republicans respond by trying to make streaming illegal. That's pretty fucked up.
yeah, back when black people knew their place.
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.
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.
We need a federal open meetings law. It should not be illegal to turn the cameras on. It should be illegal to turn them off.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
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.
I agree with you, but I'm not very enthusiastic about it. As soon as the meetings become public, the events of the meeting either devolve into showmanship (like in UK parliament) or become dreadfully dull (like in the US congress). The politicians move the actual discussion and policy making gets done else-where.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
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.
Revisionist none. I remember debating about censorship bills here in 2001.
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!!!
What's fucked up is someone known as a civil rights leader taking over the floor of the House of Representatives to demand that civil rights be taken away.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
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?
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.
Someone should start a gofundme in advance to pay this -- any lawmaker that's filming during a C-SPAN blackout and fined under this policy can get reimburdged from the gofundme account when the video is uploaded.
There, problem solved.
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.
Trump promised you a lot of things that he won't deliver to you. But you'll still vote for him in 2020, because you're going to buy whatever excuses he serves up for not delivering them.
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
Even assume that's not going to happen, it's a pretty disturbing proposal, especially considering it seems to be in response to this:
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.
So Democrats staged a public protest. Republicans shut down the broadcast. Democrats resorted to broadcasting online by streaming from their phones. Republicans respond by trying to make streaming illegal. That's pretty fucked up.
Because Patriots know that the utmost secrecy is mandatory for the proper functioning of Government.
It's funny that some of the same peopel who jack off while thinking about Julian Assange and Edward Snowden ae so certain tht a Republian majority must do it's work in secret.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
There is also a constitutional problem with such a law, specifically Article I, Section 5, Clause 2:
That first bit is why (for example) the Senate was fully within it's rights to refuse to even hold a hearing on Merrick Garland, and why they can choose if the cameras are on or not.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
Technically, what you're suggesting was never violated: there was no longer a federal meeting going on because Ryan called a recess.
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.
The way I read it, only members are not supposed to live-stream. News organizations, including C-SPAN, are allowed to do it
I miss slashdot being free of politics, and covering linux stuff instead.
Mod this up! Yeah, I really miss that. I liked the previous intense discussions on things like CPUs, OSs, computers, phones, et al. These days, there's a liberal sprinkling of politics to make it clickbait
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
That's why there is a way to amend the Constitution. At that it already has been amended to stop Congress from passing laws limiting speech. Amendments override the original, just a shame that Americans seem to universally not follow the parts of the Constitution they don't agree with.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
You should get your new from DJT's Twitter feed, like everyone else that matters.
Republicans respond by trying to make streaming illegal.
Actually, Republicans respond by adding a penalty to the existing rules against photos and videos from the floor. From TFS:
I.e., they aren't making it illegal. It was already against house rules.
What's remarkable is that the video while the house was out of session was being done for purely political purposes, something that C-SPAN was created to avoid.
So . . . Preventing Congress-critters from live streaming our government in action will somehow protect freedom of speech for US subjectscitizens?
CNN can be fined by officers of the congress. Congresscriters, according to the constitution can only be punish by their peers. So this rule is unconstitutional because it does not allow the peers of the offender to individually assert a punishment. It is like the courts or FBIor local or state police cannot judge the president. He can only be impeached.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Actually, Republicans respond by adding a penalty to the existing rules against photos and videos from the floor.
It was technically against the rules, but with no penalty, and not enforced.
What's remarkable is that the video while the house was out of session was being done for purely political purposes, something that C-SPAN was created to avoid.
Nonsense. The whole of Congress exists for political purposes. Speeches made by Senators and Representatives are all political. The first amendment protections of speech and protest are for the purpose of protecting political speech. And CSPAN is there to record ongoing politics. The purpose of the rules in Congress are not, or at least should not be, to silence the opinions of those who disagree with the political party in power.
Not by itself. But trying to block Congress-critters from using protests and free speech certainly doesn't protect free speech.
Must be preparing to vote to ratify the TPP soon, then.
Nonsense. The whole of Congress exists for political purposes.
Perhaps you misunderstand what "political purposes" means? The whole of congress exists to create legislation and funding in conformance to their duties as outlined in the US Constitution.
The "whole of Congress" does not exist as a forum for members to stand up and campaign for votes from their constituents. That is what I mean by "political purposes".
Speeches made by Senators and Representatives are all political.
The fact that many of them take advantage of the situation to make such speeches does not mean that it is the reason the congress exists.
And CSPAN is there to record ongoing politics.
No, C-SPAN is there to avoid political use of the system; a non-partisan viewer of the process. They fail miserably at times, but that, too, does not mean their purpose is to be political.
The purpose of the rules in Congress are not, or at least should not be, to silence the opinions of those who disagree with the political party in power.
The opinions are not silenced. Members of congress have special privileges in communicating with their constituents. They are just not permitted to use the house floor for political purposes, one of the long standing rules that congressional members are subject to due to their positions, your belief that the 1st Amendment is unrestricted notwithstanding.
But at least you did admit that the Republicans are not trying to make it illegal, just attach a penalty to an existing rule that previously had none.
Depends on how it is written. Typically, an open meetings law would make it illegal for even a small number of senators to meet without the cameras on, which would make it illegal to turn the cameras off even if Ryan calls for a recess as long as there is any sort of large group activity (formal or otherwise) going on.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
My local congress critter is already doing this. It's a great way to get campaign contributions. That $500 fine out of his pocket turns into many thousands of dollars of campaign contributions, a great investment all around.
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
The bills were there. They didn't want to create the fund to pay it. It's not new debt.
Debt is fine when a republican creates it. Didn't Cheney say "Reagan proved deficits don't matter". They get tight under democrats.
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
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.)
I think you're making the rather childish mistake of thinking that you can separate, "the business of governance" and "politics".
But at least you did admit that the Republicans are not trying to make it illegal, just attach a penalty to an existing rule that previously had none.
Taking a penalty-less procedural rule and attaching legal consequences *is* "making it illegal".
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.
Really? Care to explain Reagan's Administration then?
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Trump admitting at one of his thank you tour stops that all of it, the "lock her up", "drain the swamp" etc, was all BS just to elected.
notice how the audience is confused by what is going on, as trump tells the people who elected him, that the things he told them was crap to get elected.
this from the man who "tells it like it is."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
whomever told you John Lewis supports repealing the 2nd Amendment, lied to you.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Too hard to repeal it, when it's easier to infringe it.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
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
Drain the Swamp is a Trump message. This will be a battlefield b/w Trump and yes, the GOP Congress. Although clogging the swamp is a bipartisan activity
I think you're making the rather childish mistake of thinking that you can separate, "the business of governance" and "politics".
I think you are making the childish mistake of confusing "the purpose for" and "how it is being used". The purpose of congress is not to play politics or get free speech time to constituents. That it is being used for that, and has confused people into thinking that it why congress is there, is a bad thing. Rules that reduce the misuse of congress are a good thing.
Taking a penalty-less procedural rule and attaching legal consequences *is* "making it illegal".
I think you missed a few ESL classes. No, it isn't. The rule existed.
Oh, a 'rule' that has never been enforced? That means there has never been a test in court.
This 'rule', it imposes a fine? Was the 'rule' ever confirmed by the Senate? Ratified by a sitting president?
That's rather important, with language in our Constitution about 'No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law'.
It's common for a politician (or anyone with a message, actually) to speak openly, to show his face to a camera, to write for public forums, even to make a video. C-SPAN certainly wasn't intended to stop that!
The only real issue here, is using the legislative chamber as a backdrop, which is being made a monopoly of ... not our legislators, but the Speaker of the House, using rules-of-order controls on other legislators outside his/her clique. This whole tempest in a teapot
just means the Republican Speaker wants to be in control during hours when he isn't presiding over a session.
Phooey to that!