Stirred up that Dems used Facebook Live to "broadcast" the gun control sit in (after CSPAN turned off), new decorum rules are being setup to ban future streams from the floor.
Lawmakers Seek to Ban Live Video Streams in Congress
http://www.pcmag.com/news/350651/lawmakers-seek-to-ban-live-video-streams-in-congress (http://www.pcmag.com/news/350651/lawmakers-seek-to-ban-live-video-streams-in-congress)
Periscope and Facebook Live streams from Congress gave live video on social media new legitimacy as a newsmaking tool during a sit-in in June, but the Republican House leadership is now proposing rules that would ban it.
US Representatives could face a $500 fine for broadcasting audio or video via social media or any other means from the chamber floor under the proposed decorum rules, Bloomberg reported. The fine, which would be garnished from lawmakers' paychecks, would jump to $2,500 for a second offense.
Republican leadership under House Speaker Paul Ryan proposed the new rules as a response to a sit-in organized by Democrats in June to force a vote on gun control legislation. The sit-in began shortly after the House entered a recess on June 22 and official cameras were turned off. C-SPAN broadcast Periscope and Facebook Live streams from Reps. Beto O'Rourke and Scott Peters, among others, during the 25-hour sit-in.
Rep. O'Rourke, of Texas, had more than 2,000 viewers on his Facebook Live stream. Rep. Peters, of California, recorded a series of Periscope videos throughout the day, including one that was approximately 45 minutes long.
House decorum rules already prevent live video feeds from devices other than the official cameras, and Ryan's crackdown would make it easier to punish offenders.
"These changes will help ensure that order and decorum are preserved in the House of Representatives so lawmakers can do the people's work," AshLee Strong, a spokesman for Ryan, said in a statement to Bloomberg. The proposal is set for a vote on Jan. 3, once the new Congress takes office.
Why?
Seems like they are banning independent live streams rather than an official live broadcast.
Not good.
Restricting Free speech for Joe Q. Public through the legislative process is next in Duval county. This will be at the 4 pm. 12/9/16 Jacksonville Ethics Commission meeting in the Don Davis room. Is this beeing reported anywhere?
Visit Jacksonville!
Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 30, 2016, 07:42:53 PM
Seems like they are banning independent live streams rather than an official live broadcast.
Heaven forbid anything but the "official" word go out.
Not heaven... congress. Not sure I understand what the problem is. CSPAN broadcasts proceedings live and alternative broadcasts were already banned. The article is pretty bereft of any background facts historical or otherwise.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 30, 2016, 07:42:53 PM
Seems like they are banning independent live streams rather than an official live broadcast.
They cut the CSPAN feed on the sit in that prompted the Dems to start streaming. BT this is not ok.
They were in recess no? So it seems they want live streaming for protests?
Congress is a place for debate between opposing viewpoints. While in recess during the "protests " there is no debate. It is a very one sided affair. There is nothing stopping congressional protesters from doing so and live streaming from anywhere they wish. I encourage them to do so.
Perhaps Congress should remain in session 24/7/365... 8)
Quote from: stephendare on December 31, 2016, 10:51:46 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 31, 2016, 10:47:20 AM
Congress is a place for debate between opposing viewpoints. While in recess during the "protests " there is no debate. It is a very one sided affair. There is nothing stopping congressional protesters from doing so and live streaming from anywhere they wish. I encourage them to do so.
not sure what you are saying here.
Do you mean other than the new law?
I think he was saying they can live stream a protest all they want, just not from the floor of the house.
Quote from: stephendare on December 31, 2016, 12:56:26 PM
Quote from: spuwho on December 31, 2016, 12:50:04 PM
Quote from: stephendare on December 31, 2016, 10:51:46 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 31, 2016, 10:47:20 AM
Congress is a place for debate between opposing viewpoints. While in recess during the "protests " there is no debate. It is a very one sided affair. There is nothing stopping congressional protesters from doing so and live streaming from anywhere they wish. I encourage them to do so.
not sure what you are saying here.
Do you mean other than the new law?
I think he was saying they can live stream a protest all they want, just not from the floor of the house.
technically he wasn't, but probably is what he meant. ;)
and why? They were elected my a pretty large group of people to be there, and the House belongs to The People.
Its a silly law, and its like the bans on photography inside malls. That was great when people were using bulky cameras, but once the phone became the photo device, it seemed pretty damned stupid to have a photo ban in the first place.
I was doing a photo project on a "pay it forward" activity and the Publix manager waived his arms at me and said "no photos in the store, Publix doesnt permit it!"
But while I agree the Congress belongs to the people, to maintain effectiveness and order to conduct the peoples business, it must have a level of decorum and rules so that activities and votes can move through cleanly and efficiently.
The House already had a "no video" rule in place but with no penalties or consequences. This rule change updates it. When the rule was made, most congressmem probably didnt even know how to stream from their phones. Until now.
If I was privately discussing some key legislation with the House Minority Leader at her desk, I wouldnt want someone leaning over me with their iPhone webcasting my conversation.
Quote from: spuwho on December 31, 2016, 01:36:53 PM
But while I agree the Congress belongs to the people, to maintain effectiveness and order to conduct the peoples business, it must have a level of decorum and rules so that activities and votes can move through cleanly and efficiently.
The House already had a "no video" rule in place but with no penalties or consequences. This rule change updates it. When the rule was made, most congressmem probably didnt even know how to stream from their phones. Until now.
If I was privately discussing some key legislation with the House Minority Leader at her desk, I wouldnt want someone leaning over me with their iPhone webcasting my conversation.
But BridgeTroll is arguing that there should be no streaming during recesses:
Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 31, 2016, 10:47:20 AM
Congress is a place for debate between opposing viewpoints. While in recess during the "protests " there is no debate. It is a very one sided affair. There is nothing stopping congressional protesters from doing so and live streaming from anywhere they wish. I encourage them to do so.
Pretty sure it applies to everyone
I think that all happened when congress was in session
Simple really. Congress is in session and everyone debates and votes. Live streaming is provided by CSPAN. During recess no one debates and votes. No transcripts... no procedures... congress goes home to confer with their constituents. If they want to have a protest of some sort do it while in session or anywhere else they wish when not in session. I don't see the problem that you claim is so egregious.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 31, 2016, 09:40:34 AM
They were in recess no? So it seems they want live streaming for protests?
Yes of course, I can't imagine why that would be off limits to the public. I know with different events one party or the other may want to hide things for political reasons but that doesn't seem like a good reason for censure. IMO.
Quote from: JeffreyS on December 31, 2016, 04:52:46 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 31, 2016, 09:40:34 AM
They were in recess no? So it seems they want live streaming for protests?
Yes of course, I can't imagine why that would be off limits to the public. I know with different events one party or the other may want to hide things for political reasons but that doesn't seem like a good reason for censure. IMO.
What censure?
Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 31, 2016, 04:51:09 PM
Simple really. Congress is in session and everyone debates and votes. While in recess no one debates and votes. No transcripts... no procedures... congress goes home to confer with their constituents. If they want to have a protest of some sort do it while in session or anywhere else they wish when not in session. I don't see the problem that you claim is so egregious.
Come on you don't see the problem with telling Congressmen they can't broadcast their protest unless they are occupying session time to do so. What is the justification should be the question if something needs hiding.
The proposal is that business inside the chamber be censured from visual broadcast unless it is during regularly filmed sessions. If you don't like the word censure fine call it restricted access. What is the justification for the restriction should be the first question not asking why is the restriction so bad.
You don't see a problem occupying the floor of Congress by one party while everyone else is gone a problem?
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/paul-ryan-livestream-constitution-232994
Further reading I saw today.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 31, 2016, 05:03:31 PM
You don't see a problem occupying the floor of Congress by one party while everyone else is gone a problem?
What problem? The members can't use the rooms of their workplace when said room is not otherwise booked ? I do not mind if the other party occupies the space when available and streams video of their thing either.