Paul Ryan Wants To Shut Down Live Video Streams In The House

[GMDino]

http://crooksandliars.com/2016/12/paul-ryan-wants-shut-down-video-streams

Quote:When Democrats staged a sit-in on the House floor in June over gun safety laws to protect children and innocent bystanders, Paul Ryan shut down the CSPAN cameras to deny the public access to their protest.

Undeterred, Democratic congressmen began using live-streaming services like Facebook Live to keep their message from being squelched.

Paul Ryan wasn't happy about that, and plans to put an end to live streams, according to Bloomberg News.

Quote:Under the proposed new rules package, which was seen by Bloomberg, members could face a $500 fine through deductions to their paychecks for a first offense of using electronic photography or audio or visual recording, as well as for broadcasting from the chamber’s floor. A $2,500 fine would be leveled for the next such offense and each subsequent violation.

The new rules also clarify which conduct is to be deemed disorderly or disruptive during floor proceedings, including blocking access by other members to microphones or what is known as “the well” -- the front of the chamber.

How is this not a violation of the First Amendment? Elected officials in a building paid for and maintained by taxpayers to conduct the public's business clearly have a First Amendment right to be heard, right?

Right, but not because of the First Amendment.

Quote:But experts say Ryan’s proposal may run afoul of Article 1 of the Constitution, which says “each House may … punish its Members for disorderly behavior.” For more than 200 years that has been interpreted to mean any contested sanctions against lawmakers must be approved by the full House with a floor vote, attorneys steeped in congressional legal matters say.

“The Constitution gives the House the authority to discipline members; I have never heard of anything where an officer of the House was given that authority,” said Mike Stern, a former lawyer for the nonpartisan House counsel’s office and the Senate Homeland Security Committee’s GOP staff.
Stern, who called the proposed rule a “plausible Constitutional issue to raise,” said Democrats could take the matter to court. “Their strongest argument would be: The House doesn’t have the authority to give these officers the power to punish us; only the power of the House can do that, and [Republicans] have short-circuited our rights by the way they’ve done it.’”

This is nice and all, and if it were reversed, I guarantee you a right wing think tank funded by the Koch brothers would grind the gears toward getting it to the Supreme Court, but Democrats lack the same legal infrastructure on our side. I expect members will defy the rules under some set of circumstances, be fined, and live with it.

The House of Representatives is the people's house, and we should have the absolute right to view the proceedings at all times, not when the Speaker chooses to leave the cameras on. With fascism roaring down the tracks at us, the First Amendment is more important than ever, and today's technology clearly allows for us to view proceedings in real time, whether on CSPAN or Facebook Live.

[Rotobeast]

I don't like the sit-in, on the House floor.
Go do it in the lobby or something.
Furthermore, I think our tax dollars are wasted more than enough and this action is a blatant waste.
The people sitting in should be fined for dereliction of duty and obstruction.
As far as the live streaming, I don't really care.
I guess the biggest thing is the example it sets for the youth (if you don't get what you want, sit and pout in somebody's way, until you get it).


Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[mallorian69]

The sit in was done while congress was not actually meeting. The cameras are always turned off when no official procedings are happening or about to happen. Nothing more than Dems whining like a spoiled brat when they don't get their way.

[Rotobeast]

(12-30-2016, 03:47 PM)mallorian69 Wrote: The sit in was done while congress was not actually meeting. The cameras are always turned off when no official procedings are happening or about to happen. Nothing more than Dems whining like a spoiled brat when they don't get their way.

Thanks.
I apparently missed that.

[GMDino]

(12-30-2016, 03:47 PM)mallorian69 Wrote: The sit in was done while congress was not actually meeting. The cameras are always turned off when no official procedings are happening or about to happen. Nothing more than Dems whining like a spoiled brat when they don't get their way.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/cspan-house-sitin-democrats-224696

Quote:When the sit-in began Wednesday morning, Republican leaders ordered the House into recess. And since only they, and not C-SPAN, oversee the camera, C-SPAN’s feed was cut off, as dictated by the chamber’s rules.

Quote:Speaker of the House Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) blasted the move, calling it a “publicity stunt.” His spokeswoman, AshLee Strong, said that because the House had gone into recess, the feed had to go. Rules are rules.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

My understanding of this issue is that this merely introduces the ability for the Sergeant-At-Arms to issue penalties for live streaming.  The actual live streaming from cell phones, which is what is being discussed, is already prohibited by rule. 

[treee]

The real question is why isn't there a 24 hour audio and video feed of the floor at all times? Not exactly asking a lot here, technologically.