Documentary Filmmaker Arrested At Congressional Hearing For Filming With A Different Opinion
from the first-amendment-anyone? dept
In a rather troubling move, it appears that the leadership of the House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment had a documentary filmmaker arrested on Congressional property for daring to try to film a hearing that was taking place on the subject of "fracking" -- an issue for which this filmmaker, Josh Fox, is well known for covering in his documentary Gasland. As far as I can tell, it appears the reason for his arrest was that he was "filmmaking with a different opinion than subcommittee Chair Andy Harris." As the article linked above (by Zach Carter at HuffPo) details, it isn't just common, but pretty much standard, that journalists are allowed to film any open Congressional hearings."I was chair of the Subcommittee for four years, and we frequently had people show up the day of a hearing to film," Rep. Brad Miller (D-N.C.) told HuffPost. "We asked for their name, but they were told if they would not disrupt the hearing, they were free to record. A couple of times staff said, 'You're getting in the way, don't stand there,' but other than that, I do not ever recall anything like this. We certainly never turned anyone away for not providing 24 hours' notice."On top of that, even if you want to stick to the letter of the rules, and say that since he didn't have approval he shouldn't have been allowed, that still doesn't excuse the arrest. They could have simply confiscated the camera, or even simply checked to see if he could obtain a temporary permit:
[....]
Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) told HuffPost, “I have served in the House of Representatives since 1992, and I had the privilege of chairing the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties. In all that time, I cannot recall a chair of any committee or subcommittee having ever ordered the removal of a person who was filming a committee proceeding and not being disruptive, whether or not that person was accredited. It is a matter of routine that all sorts of people photograph and record our proceedings. Most of them are not accredited. I cannot recall anyone questioning their right to be there."
Temporary passes are easy to obtain, and if Republicans had objected on procedural grounds, they could have simply sent the crew to the front desk, rather than ordering police to arrest journalists.And, of course, now this is raising some serious First Amendment issues. Considering that pretty much everyone else has been allowed to film, and the only times that people are rejected are if there are too many cameras (not so in this case), it appears that the only reason that Fox was arrested was because his opinion was different from that of the subcommittee chair. And that's where the First Amendment issue comes in. If the reason for his arrest was based on his viewpoint, rather than his actions, then that's an almost certain First Amendment issue -- and since the only thing different in Fox's situation compared to most others' situations is his opinion... then this action likely trips that First Amendment wire.
But here's the really crazy thing: I can't, for the life of me, figure out how this move made any sense to Rep. Harris. If he had allowed the filming to go on, it would have been a non-story, and most people wouldn't have heard about this hearing or paid any attention to the issue at all. But by having the guy arrested, he's now called much more attention to the issue, guaranteeing that it becomes a news story that lives on for a while... and it does absolutely nothing to stop what happened in the hearing from appearing in a later documentary by Fox. That's because C-SPAN still filmed the whole thing... So all Rep. Harris did was give a lot more attention to a guy whose viewpoints he opposed.
For what it's worth, we've chided Fox in the past as well, for abusing the DMCA to take down videos he had no copyright over, to try to hide the speech of critics. He's certainly no free speech hero himself. But that hardly means that we should encourage his own free speech rights to be taken away. In the meantime, since much of the coverage here makes this into a "Republicans vs. Democrats" issue, one also has to wonder about Rep. Darrell Issa's view on the whole thing. While it was his party that had Fox arrested, he's been a champion of much more openness and transparency with recordings of Congressional hearings.
It seems that whether you agree with Fox or not, it's simply ridiculous (and potentially against the law) to have had him arrested merely for seeking to film the hearing in question.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: andy harris, congressional hearing, fracking, free speech, gasland, josh fox
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Freedom
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Streisand Effect
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stay Classy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What is the penalty for violating the Constitution?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What is the penalty for violating the Constitution?
Penalty should be the immediate removal from office until proven innocent. Let it roll like everything else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What is the penalty for violating the Constitution?
Yet, there is a utility easement in most backyards in use by companies. Comcast (not regulated, not a utility) lays their pipes in your backyard - and when you call them on it - it doesn't exactly go your way.
You are correct. There should be severe penalties for violating the constitution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What is the penalty for violating the Constitution?
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What is the penalty for violating the Constitution?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wheww, its a good thing this is an isolated incident and totallly not widespread, and only used to protect issues that benefit the people and not some companies profit margin.......again!
News flash
government officials spit on the bill of rights on a daily basis
News flash
the bill of rights does'nt exist in governmant land
Newsflash
no matter how big or small, corruption is corruption
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Tusk, Tusk, how easy they forget
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Filmaker arrested for having an undesirable opinion"
Government stance on the internet
"it is not our intention to censor the internet"
Rrrrrright, way to prove your case
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
censor us............ individually!
Genius
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In a interview today Fox who was removed claims the results of the scientific studies are being skewed via a manipulation and appointment of favorable scientists by this same committee.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
A man’s word is his bond, well, except when confronting a filmmaker with a different opinion that is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the *Censored of the United States against all enemies, foreign and *Censored; that I will bear *Censored faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this *Censored freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of *Censored; and that I will well and *Censored discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. *Censored
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Gwiz on Feb 2nd, 2012 @ 12:54pm
The chair is merely giving his masters their money's worth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The embedded video ...
I am not referring to the content. The damn thing AUTO-PLAYS and you can click pause all you want and NOTHING happens. Finally when you click in the video window itself you are taken away to a new website!
for whoever is wondering I am using Ubuntu 11.04 and Firefox, and other embedded videos do not auto-play.
FOUL!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The embedded video ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The embedded video ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The embedded video ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The embedded video ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The embedded video ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The embedded video ...
If you don't use an ad blocker you may want to consider doing so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
problem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Got there at last....
/sarc
Fast forward 10 years I can see a game show question:
Host: "What was considered the foremost document of civil rights in the last century"
Contestant: "Ummmmm.. that would be the 'Constipation' Bob?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nothing short of that will change the way our leadership is.
You can not even Vote for someone you really believe in any longer because there is no one to believe in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Facebook is ...
if you want to show your support.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
People wonder
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It sucks what has happened to this asshat as it will give him more greed in his circles.
You know the Algore types who think I should live in the dark and ride a bike as they jet around the globe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Stay Classy, Ohio.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And............ citation needed!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ve hafe vays of delink vith people like joo...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And if he wanted to avoid giving opponents of fracking another set of reasons to continuing to oppose it he just found it.
Hell, even the security guy looked embarassed.
Rep Harris meet Streisand effect. Streisand effect meet Rep Harris. I see a long and intimate relationship ahead for you both. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's just like the guy who got arrested for wearing an Occupy jacket in the history exhibit at the United States Supreme Court: http://bit.ly/x3j0Le
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jack-booted thugs
Despite the fact that I agree politically with Andy Harris on many issues, I told his staffer to convey the message that, in light of the fact that those 'rules' have rarely been enforced, I hope the Congressman's constituents throw him out on his ear in the next election.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]