As Republicans Turn Off House Live Feed, Reps & C-SPAN Turn To Periscope And Facebook Live Video To Cover Sit In
from the we-all-are-the-media dept
So something fascinating happened in Congress today. No matter what your opinion is on gun control or the various legislative proposals around it that have been up for debate in the past week or so, it’s hard to fathom what Congressional Republicans thought they were doing today in shutting off the live video feed from the House floor. A bunch of Democrats decided to hold a sit in on the House floor to push for a vote on some gun legislation. That’s a bit of a stunt no matter how you look at it, but the Republicans shot back by helping that stunt get much more attention by not just gavelling the House out of session, but also turning off the live feed of the House floor that flows to C-SPAN and out to the rest of us. C-SPAN doesn’t control the cameras and is at the whim of Congress to access that feed, so when the GOP shut off the feed, C-SPAN was left without. This isn’t a stupid move that’s limited to the Republican side of Congress, apparently. Eight years ago the Democrats did the same thing when they controlled the House and were upset about Republicans trying to focus on a particular issue.
Of course, we now live in a modern technological age, where everyone has the power to broadcast live video in the devices we all carry in our pockets. Thus, despite House rules that forbid any sort of broadcasting from the floor, Rep. Scott Peters started broadcasting from the floor. And even as the Sergeant at Arms tried to stop the broadcasting, more people on the floor started using Periscope, Snapchat and Facebook Live, leading to C-SPAN rebroadcasting those feeds.
C-SPAN claims it’s the first time it’s done this (and let’s not even bother with the copyright questions related to all of this…). But it seems like yet another example of a form of the Streisand Effect. The sit in was designed to get attention, and it certainly would have no matter what. But shutting off the cameras and trying to shut down the entire process only seemed to drive that much more attention to what was going on, and modern technology helped let the story still come out, no matter what the “House rules” happened to say.
Filed Under: cameras, congress, democrats, facebook live, gun control, periscope, republicans, streaming, video
Companies: c-span, facebook, snapchat, twitter
Comments on “As Republicans Turn Off House Live Feed, Reps & C-SPAN Turn To Periscope And Facebook Live Video To Cover Sit In”
Damn those Democrats anyway. The Republicans finally did us a favor and they screw it up. Who the hell wants to hear what those blow hards have to say?
“Next up on the agenda, a prohibition against bringing any electronic device capable of recording audio and/or video into the chambers…”
Re: Re:
na, they will just spend million on cell phone jammers ironically turning the house into a prison.
Playing the victim card to advance an authoritarian agenda.
https://theintercept.com/2016/06/21/democrats-war-on-due-process-and-terrorist-fear-mongering-long-pre-dates-orlando/
Re: Re:
Exactly (it would also seem that news from a certain someone’s pet pufta has become quite inconvenient lately).
Is it common for CSPAN to broadcast when the house is not in session?
Re: Re:
They fill the air when Congress’s isn’t in session. Uncut stump speeches, Congressional hearings that they didn’t have time to air and lots of book TV.
Dont know much about foia but...
Would these videos and communications fall under that for record keeping? If a congressperson is creating a video or audio recording for the purpose of informing the public, do they have to maintain a copy?
People watch C-SPAN? I mean yeah I know people watch the station but not much of the general public because watching paint dry is more entertaining.
wait your telling me I can watch the bomb dogs search the chamber and the janitors clean up. do they ever turn off the lights? is there night vision? so many questions
The real question is how many politicians have Snapchat and do they send out nudes?
Re: Re:
Not many politicians I’d want to see nude.
The self funded channels are showing this
Some of the free speech channels aka community funded television have been airing the periscope feed.
It’s sad to see this showing on the RT channel, which is Russian owned and not on actual U.S. commercial stations.
In case you’re wondering RT is having a propaganda good time showing U.S. republican’s unwillingness to govern.
Re: The self funded channels are showing this
Cspan aired the periscope feed.
Re: The self funded channels are showing this
U.S. republican’s unwillingness to govern.
Say what? By saying no to the Dems is governing.
Re: Re: The self funded channels are showing this
Also, since when do we want to take advice on governing from Russia? Are Russian citizens allowed to own firearms? Maybe if they were they could have fought off the years of oppression?
Re: Re: The self funded channels are showing this
The party of no says no again .. I’m shocked.
The do nothing congress has been blatantly shirking their duties for almost eight years now and bragging about it. Any other job one would be fired within a few hours for refusing to perform your job duties.
These are the pouting little brats that did not get their way, so they are taking the ball and going home.
Re: Re: Re: The self funded channels are showing this
They are the party of no only because the other party wants to do stupid stuff. But I do agree that they have shirked their duties because they have rolled over to Obama too many times. That is why we have Trump running for President.
Re: Re: Re:2 The self funded channels are showing this
Yes, because paying for things that you purchased in the past is such a stupid thing to do. Stupid congress.
Re: Re: Re: The self funded channels are showing this
The Republican’s are doing their job!!! It’s not the Republican’s job to give into everything OBAMA wants!!! By the way, when the Democrats are in control they do the exact SAME THING!!! That I guess is OK for you.
Re: Re: Re:2 The self funded channels are showing this
They refuse to vote on anything they do not like.
They supposedly have the majority so wtf are they afraid of?
Voting is their big job function and they refuse .. they should be fired.
Re: Re: Re: The self funded channels are showing this
Oh noes, the Republicans are saying no to stomping on citizens 4th and 2nd amendment rights.
God Damned right the Republicans are saying no!!!
You can be a fucking sheep if you want, but as for me, no thanks!!
Re: Re: The self funded channels are showing this
Unfortunately they say no to everything unless its their idea even if the Dems suggested it before.
Re: Re: Re: The self funded channels are showing this
So they kind of, by default, lose the benefit of the doubt.
Re: Re: Re: The self funded channels are showing this
And the Dems don’t do that to Repub ideas? Nice one-sided view you have there.
Re: Re: Re:2 The self funded channels are showing this
Most congress critters realize that voting on issues is their job. The party that holds the speaker position decides what comes to the floor regardless of what their colleagues might desire. Are you aware of any statistical breakdown by speaker which supports your allegation that both parties obstruct congressional duties by similar amounts?
Re: Re: Re: The self funded channels are showing this
both parties do that though. Most refuse to see the forest for the trees.
Re: Re: The self funded channels are showing this
That is NOT governing, it’s obstruction. Actually governing involves getting stuff done.
Re: Re: Re: The self funded channels are showing this
Obstructing stupid stuff from the other side is absolutely governing. Because they don’t do what you want them to do doesn’t mean they aren’t doing their job. They just aren’t doing it to your liking. And the Dems aren’t doing their job to the liking of the other half of the country.
Re: Re: Re:2 The self funded channels are showing this
Give me one example of “stupid stuff.”
Re: Re: Re:3 The self funded channels are showing this
Gun control, running up $18 trillion in debt, Obamacare and the list goes on.
Re: Re: Re:4 The self funded channels are showing this
Much of the debt Obama gets blamed for by GOP types was proposed, voted upon and approved during Bush era – for example, bank bailouts.
Re: Re: Re:5 The self funded channels are showing this
“was proposed, voted upon and approved” by a democrat controlled congress.
Re: Re: Re:6 The self funded channels are showing this
“was proposed, voted upon and approved” by a democrat controlled congress.
Yes, a Democratic Congress and Republican President did it together. Not President Obama (which was his point).
Re: Re: Re:7 The self funded channels are showing this
No, Obama was just a member of that legislative body that voted for it.
Phukkoff left winger.
Re: Re: Re:8 The self funded channels are showing this
So you assume that anyone who points out facts is a left winger?
Re: Re: Re:9 The self funded channels are showing this
Those damned facts again … they keep getting in the way, must be something we can do about that.
Re: Re: Re:5 The self funded channels are showing this
Wow, 7 years later and Bush still gets the blame. It amazes me how many excuses and lies a large segment of society doesn’t mind telling or being told. Will you accept those excuses for 8 more years if Hillary gets into office? At what point in the collapse of this country will you finally realize that excuses aren’t getting us anywhere?
Here is a tidbit for you. During the first 2 years of Obama’s first term, when he racked up more debt on a failing healthcare system, he could have done anything he wanted with taxes. The Dems passed healthcare w/o a single republican vote. They could have socked it to the rich with taxes as well. But not a peep was made about taxes. Instead, they waited until they lost control of congress then started talking taxes.
You realize Hillary made $150 million dollars in the last 7 years? Many of those years while she was selling influence from the State Dept? So now you see why they will never soak the rich? THEY ARE RICH!
Re: Re: Re:6 The self funded channels are showing this
Not sure what your point is, perhaps you could state it clearly?
Bush gets the blame because the sitting prez gets the blame for things that happen on their watch, not my idea .. just the way it is.
Excuses? Whose excuses, bankers?
The economic disaster that occurred on Bush’s watch was ticking long before he took office the first time, he did nothing to stop it. I’m guessing they hoped it would not happen till the next admin took office, they could wipe their hands.
The other thing that is rather humorous, you think those who disagree with you are Hillary fans. It must be strange living in a black and white world.
Re: Re: Re:6 The self funded channels are showing this
They could have socked it to the rich with taxes as well. But not a peep was made about taxes. Instead, they waited until they lost control of congress then started talking taxes.
So what are you bitching about then?
Isn’t that what you guys love? Tax cuts for the rich? Trickle-down economics?
Re: Re: Re:7 The self funded channels are showing this
Wow, you guys really are stupid as they come. The guy is trying to open your eyes and show you the Dems campaign on taxing the rich and when they have a chance to do it they don’t because they are rich too. Even worse is Hillary enriched herself by selling influence from the State Department. And you idiots are trying to elect her to President thinking she is going to be different.
Re: Re: Re:8 The self funded channels are showing this
And you idiots are trying to elect her to President thinking she is going to be different.
Personally I just think she’s going to be better than Trump.
Re: Re: Re:8 The self funded channels are showing this
“you idiots are trying to elect her to President “
I’m offended
Re: The self funded channels are showing this
Yeah, free speech is awesome. The right to keep an bear arms (and for due process) is soon outmoded.
Either you value ALL the damned Bill of Rights or you really value NONE of it.
Color me not really impressed that free speech is allowing people to see Democrat children in the House of Representatives protesting that they can’t simply take our fourth, fifth, and second amendment rights away.
I believe that they have a right to speak out, don’t get me wrong, but what they’re saying is hypocritical bullshit.
Shouldn’t be any copyright. It was made by a government employee (even if elected) during the course of their work and is of utmost public interest.
A better way would have been if they announced they would be getting rid of their armed security details. That would make it more believable that they truly believe guns should be restricted instead of the “we believe the average citizen should not have access to guns as a way to defend themselves, but we do”
Re: if they announced they would be getting rid of their armed security details
Speaking of which, you remember when Donald Trump addressed the NRA convention, proclaiming how he would get rid of gun-free zones?
Did you notice the sign outside the convention centre, saying “NO WEAPONS ALLOWED”?
That’s right—the NRA convention centre was a gun-free zone!
Not that I am calling anyone a hypocrite, of course…
Re: Re: if they announced they would be getting rid of their armed security details
It is hypocritical only when someone else is doing it.
Re: Re:
A better way would have been if they announced they would be getting rid of their armed security details. That would make it more believable that they truly believe guns should be restricted instead of the “we believe the average citizen should not have access to guns as a way to defend themselves, but we do”
Only if that is actually what they’re saying. From what I’ve heard, none of the proposed bills (which have all failed so far) would remove access to guns as a way to defend ourselves.
Re: Re: Re:
Here is a test to see if you qualify for being labeled as a potential domestic terrorist by the US government. Since this test is a few years old no doubt more qualifications have been added since then.
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/09/take-the-test-to-see-if-you-might-be-considered-a-potential-terrorist-by-government-officials.html
Re: Re:
Except that few if any democrats want to ban firearms, so that’s a strawman argument.
Re: Re:
Oh, God, this asinine talking point again. Seth Meyers put it best:
“Yeah, how come my pharmacist can have a big jug of Vicodin, but I can’t?” Meyers said, responding to Carlson’s vapid argument. “Buddy, you’re a private citizen, and that’s not the same as a Secret Service agent. They’re professional law enforcement officers who’ve had to go through years of rigorous training and certification — whereas you look as if you were born and raised on a sailboat.”
“In 2008, Republicans protested when Democrats, led by then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.), adjourned the House without granting a floor vote on offshore drilling. When Republicans then refused to leave the House floor, Pelosi ordered the lights and microphones off and cut off the video and audio feed to C-SPAN.
When reporters refused to leave the House Press Gallery, where they were watching the action, Pelosi order the Capitol Hill Police to remove the reporters from the gallery.”
http://www.breitbart.com/2nd-amendment/2016/06/22/house-gop-members-livid-speaker-ryan-allows-dems-stage-sit/
Re: Re:
Brietbart?
lol
Re: Re: Re:
What’s wrong you pathetic piece of sh!t left winger? You can’t deny it happened, so you attack the source.
Typical.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Got to admire the high level of discourse going on here, I might even assume that every poster here is operating at or above the fifth grade level … with a few exceptions of course, including yourself.
Re: Re: Re:
ya if you clicked on the article you would notice that Breitbart sourced NBC, getting your news from both sides of the aisle is a good idea.
What copyright, Mike?
Wouldn’t this be covered under a public records statute (stayed up late watching, not enough coffee in me to bother looking them up), or at the very least under a ‘this is a taxpayer funded building so there isn’t a copyright’ thing?
Argh.
Aren’t we tired of electing children to office?
I’m tried of politicians deciding for us instead of listening to us.. on ALL issues.
Re: Argh.
Sounds like taxation without representation.
So, the political party that wants to use a secret list that ignores Due Process is upset because the Republicans put the house in recess rather than pursue this unconstitutional agenda?
These watch lists are just McCarthyism 2.0. They have gone from making secret lists of Communists to secret lists of terrorists.
When the ACLU and the NRA are on the same side of an issue it pays to take a second look at the issue.
Re: Re:
Just vote it down then and be done with it, no need to act like children.
TLAs like secret lists – who knew?
Both the NRA and the ACLU think that congress should not vote on measures because the speaker does not like them? This is hard to believe.
Re: Re: Re:
I read they did vote on it and it, and all 4 of the new proposed laws failed to pass. Most of the republicans and democrats both refused to pass laws that would restrict the rights of their fellow citizens.
The ones having a sit in are having a temper tantrum that they didn’t get their way.
The whole “we shall vote and revote until the results are what I want.”
Re: Re: Re: Re:
” read they did vote on it and it, and all 4 of the new proposed laws failed to pass.”
Interesting – got a link?
Left wingers… smh.
Re: Re:
Political discourse has shifted hard to the right. When anything that disagrees with outright Fascism is considered to be left wing, we’re screwed.
Twitter to the rescue
In today’s age, you can’t stop news
New day. Same scam.
The only thing about gun control that either side cares about is the donations. There have always been practical approaches to gun control that would remain compliant with the second amendment. They never go in that direction, because they want the money the debate generates, not the win.
Great scam though.
“you SEE! we’re protesters and we’re fed up, JUST LIKE YOU!”
Maybe it will get some of Bernie crowd to get them on board with the the candidate the demopublicans have picked, but I doubt it. It isn’t about liberal/conservative brand D/Brand R. They are two sales pitches on the same Corporate party.
The sign on the American Door now reads: “Dear Democrat or Republican shill, fuck off. We have gone third party. Thanks for your hard work. Have a nice day”.
Re: New day. Same scam.
“the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
pretty sure any law that regulates the right of the people to keep and bear arms is unconstitutional.
now we have NICs the national instant criminal background check. FFL federal firearm licenses. conceal carry permits, pistol purchase permits. waiting periods. machine gun ban, assault weapons ban, nfa tax stamps, various bans on weapons imports that few people know about. the reason the ar-15 is such a big deal is that its made domestically all the imports have been banned including clones of American iconic firearms like the m1a.
Re: Re: New day. Same scam.
pretty sure any law that regulates the right of the people to keep and bear arms is unconstitutional.
Few to none of the rights mentioned in the constitution are absolute, including the right to bear arms.
Re: Re: New day. Same scam.
“pretty sure any law that regulates the right of the people to keep and bear arms is unconstitutional. “
How’s that fully auto machine gun doin there Biff?
Re: Re: New day. Same scam.
Actually the whole second amendment reads:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Demopublicans always leave that first part out regardless of which brand is playing the straight man. The Republicans leave it out “because shooting good!” and the Democrats leave it out “because Malitia bad!”.
If “Malitia” was not intended to be contextualized, it wouldn’t have been in there.
The federal code does define Malitia’s, and current regulatory practices implemented by the ATF likely violate that definition. The current federal code could be reasonably interpreted to limit firearms ownership to MEN age 17 to 45 already. (look it up.)
The context to which the second amendment recognizes the right to keep and bare arms is in particular a military one. It has nothing to do with dear hunting, or match shooting.
Which is to say, that if for example the federal government put a P.T. standard on malitias, they could regulate assault rifles on the basis of whether a person is sufficiently ambulatory to actually use one in a military context. This would probably pass constitutional muster with SCOTUS.
There would be a number of positive side effects. The first of which is generating additional income for gun shops AND police by allowing them to run periodic standards assessments. The second of which would be to compel the community to engage in some social interaction so they would be better able to self regulate.
The reason they don’t go this route? Because they don’t want armed civilians to be friendly and organized. And because they just want the fundraising, not the win.
It is a game of three card monty in the park. D and R take turns being the straight man. Stop playing their game. They don’t care. They never did. They’re just taking your money.
Join a third party, and help advance it. If you want brand R or brand D to do anything, the only thing that will get their attention is reduced marketshare.
Bush had it right… We’ll either fight terrorists where they live or they’ll come here and fight us where we live.
In the end this entire dog and pony show isn’t about protecting the American public but is an attempt to distract the American public from the fact that Obama’s FBI let a Muslim, who’s a registered Democrat, kill 49 gay people, and then lost track of his accomplice-wife.
Tar and feathers.
Re: Re:
Bush had it right… We’ll either fight terrorists where they live or they’ll come here and fight us where we live.
So are you saying we didn’t fight them where they live, or that they’re not fighting us where we live?
the fact that Obama’s FBI let a Muslim, who’s a registered Democrat, kill 49 gay people
Not that I’m a fan of the FBI, but that wording implies that they chose not to do anything about this (and the “registered Democrat” comment is a symptom of partisan nitwit disease). It seems much more likely that they, like everyone else, had no idea this was going to happen.
Re: Re: Re:
Bush had it right… We’ll either fight terrorists where they live
Yeah, that whole fight them where they live has worked out so well. Some people never, ever, learn.
Jackass.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It did until obama become the resident of the White House.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Everything was under control during Bush.
… well – except for that economic crash thingie
… and that bank bailout fiasco
… and 911
… and Katrina
… thanks obama
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
First off, learn to read. No where did I mention the economy, Katrina, or any other aspect of things during Bush’s presidency.
Second, you reveal yourself to be a propagandized piece of sh!t or a propagandist piece of sh!t. Either way, you’re a POS.
Third, democrats were in control of congress when the collapse happened, they were the ones who voted for bailouts.
Fourth, 911 is the reason for why to fight.
And lastly, Katrina is a perfect example of the collusion of democrats and democrats with bylines. The politician that dropped the ball was the mayor, Ray Nagin, but the democrats with bylines spun that and created a whole slew of lies on which to pin down Bush. The biggest one was the supposed conditions at the Astrodome.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Anyone with whom you disagree is a “propagandized piece of sh!t” – amirite?
Funny how Congress is not responsible for anything while a Dem is in the WH, but is totally responsible for everything when a Rep is in the WH – LOL, I find this hypocrisy to be not very surprising.
Oh yeah … I do not know how to read – Doh!
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Right – because we’re concerned about the budget/deficit when it comes to anything except waging perpetual war.
Re: Re: Re:
(Jackass was meant for the OP)
Re: Re: Re: Re:
But it more appropriately fits you.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
It’s OK – I understand.
You’re just pissed that it’s nearly inevitable that a democrat will be in the white house again, and that your trump shitshow will also probably cost you some congress seats.
You ran McCain in 08 – and paired him up with the single biggest retard on the planet.
Then, fresh off the biggest collapse in recent history, you run Romney – a wall street asshole who can’t keep his disdain for nearly half the population quiet.
This time, you run a misogynistic, racist douchebag.
So my original comment stands. You never learn.
Jackass.
“Not that I’m a fan of the FBI, but that wording implies that they chose not to do anything about this (and the “registered Democrat” comment is a symptom of partisan nitwit disease). It seems much more likely that they, like everyone else, had no idea this was going to happen.”
Another dumb monkey spins for the big banana.
Re: Re:
Another dumb monkey spins for the big banana.
Would I be correct in translating this as “anyone who doesn’t believe in my conspiracy theory is a dumb sheeple”?
Re: Re: Re:
No, you’d be incorrect.
Theory: a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
Conspiracy theory: a belief that some covert but influential organization is responsible for a circumstance or event.
Now it’s safe to say I present a theory, which one may argue is wrong, it isn’t a conspiracy theory.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
OK, so it’s “anyone who doesn’t believe in my version of events is a dumb sheeple”? So much better.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Oh, no, I never use the word sheeple.
You people didn’t get duped into your beliefs, you’re simply the enemy playing out your propaganda.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
I’m the enemy… of who? And what propaganda am I playing out? You mean the idea that FBI didn’t know what this guy was going to do? That “propaganda”?
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Anyone who does not regurgitate the party line is the enemy and needs to be destroyed … that is the basis of democracy, didn’t you know that?
Re: Re: Re:
seemed more like a racist slur to me. the only times i see monkey used as an insult is when a person is refering to a black person.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
seemed more like a racist slur to me.
Possible, though why he would think someone on the other end of the internet is of any particular race is unclear. Then again I’m not sure his thinking is clear to begin with.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I also see it used as an insult by way of the stock phrase “performing monkey” – i.e., someone who does their tricks out of a hope/expectation of being rewarded by The Man (“With The Yellow Hat”?) for it, without knowing or caring about the meanings or consequences of said tricks.
In the immediate context, it seems at least as likely to me that “monkey” here is a contraction of that type of expression as that it’s a racist slur.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It could be, but “monkey” is quite often used as an insult in ways that have nothing whatsoever to do with race. Particularly in my part of the country, which favors different racial slurs than that particular one.
Another circle jerk under the dome, get your raggedy asses up off of that filthy floor and get back to work. As for the morons who pulled the live feed you will be fined for your malicious activities as well. It is called a Constitutional Convention, if you don’t have the stomach for it find yourselves another line of work. Drumph and Shillary, God help us.
Re: Re:
Trump or Hillary?
Top socket or Bottom socket?
http://www.memes.com/img/905031
Well color me (not) surprised
Article about how an attempt to shut down any recordings fails utterly devolves immediately into a ‘My tribe vs Your tribe’ bicker-fest.
Yup, certainly didn’t see that coming… /s
I’m sure any politician reading the comments would be so very proud that the biggest scam in politics is alive and well, and remains just as effective today as it was decades past.