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.
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: cameras, congress, democrats, facebook live, gun control, periscope, republicans, streaming, video
Companies: c-span, facebook, snapchat, twitter
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
https://theintercept.com/2016/06/21/democrats-war-on-due-process-and-terrorist-fear-mongering -long-pre-dates-orlando/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dont know much about foia but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The self funded channels are showing this
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The self funded channels are showing this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The self funded channels are showing this
Say what? By saying no to the Dems is governing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The self funded channels are showing this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The self funded channels are showing this
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The self funded channels are showing this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The self funded channels are showing this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The self funded channels are showing this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The self funded channels are showing this
They supposedly have the majority so wtf are they afraid of?
Voting is their big job function and they refuse .. they should be fired.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The self funded channels are showing this
God Damned right the Republicans are saying no!!!
You can be a fucking sheep if you want, but as for me, no thanks!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The self funded channels are showing this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The self funded channels are showing this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The self funded channels are showing this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The self funded channels are showing this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The self funded channels are showing this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The self funded channels are showing this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The self funded channels are showing this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The self funded channels are showing this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The self funded channels are showing this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The self funded channels are showing this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The self funded channels are showing this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The self funded channels are showing this
Yes, a Democratic Congress and Republican President did it together. Not President Obama (which was his point).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The self funded channels are showing this
Phukkoff left winger.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The self funded channels are showing this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The self funded channels are showing this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The self funded channels are showing this
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!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The self funded channels are showing this
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The self funded channels are showing this
So what are you bitching about then?
Isn't that what you guys love? Tax cuts for the rich? Trickle-down economics?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The self funded channels are showing this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The self funded channels are showing this
Personally I just think she's going to be better than Trump.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The self funded channels are showing this
I'm offended
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The self funded channels are showing this
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: if they announced they would be getting rid of their armed security details
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...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: if they announced they would be getting rid of their armed security details
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/09/take-the-test-to-see-if-you-might-be-considered-a-potent ial-terrorist-by-government-officials.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
“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.”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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-allo ws-dems-stage-sit/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Typical.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What copyright, Mike?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Argh.
I'm tried of politicians deciding for us instead of listening to us.. on ALL issues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Argh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
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."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Interesting - got a link?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Twitter to the rescue
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
New day. Same scam.
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".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: New day. Same scam.
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: New day. Same scam.
Few to none of the rights mentioned in the constitution are absolute, including the right to bear arms.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: New day. Same scam.
How's that fully auto machine gun doin there Biff?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: New day. Same scam.
"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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yeah, that whole fight them where they live has worked out so well. Some people never, ever, learn.
Jackass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
... well - except for that economic crash thingie
... and that bank bailout fiasco
... and 911
... and Katrina
... thanks obama
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
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!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another dumb monkey spins for the big banana.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Would I be correct in translating this as "anyone who doesn't believe in my conspiracy theory is a dumb sheeple"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You people didn't get duped into your beliefs, you're simply the enemy playing out your propaganda.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Top socket or Bottom socket?
http://www.memes.com/img/905031
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well color me (not) surprised
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]