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)
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=
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.
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.
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 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.
If the members of the House have any "ethics" at all, you can be fairly certain that they either stole them from someone else, or received them from a lobbyist as a bribe.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
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.
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
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
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.
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".
Really? Care to explain Reagan's Administration then?
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.