(visit the link for the full news article)
WASHINGTON -- In a stunning break with First Amendment policy on Capitol Hill, House Republicans directed Capitol Hill police to detain a highly regarded documentary crew that was attempting to film a Wednesday hearing on a controversial natural gas procurement practice. Republicans also denied the entrance of a credentialed ABC News news team that was attempting to film the event.
UPDATE: 2:27 p.m. -- Fox apparently had applied for credentialing the day before the hearing but had been unable to obtain official permission to film. He had asked a credentialed film crew to tape the proceedings on his behalf but was informed that this was not permitted.
Democrats attempted to suspend the rules governing camerawork to allow Josh Fox and ABC to film the hearing, but Republicans, who hold a majority on all House committees and subcommittees, voted down the motion.
Originally posted by Eidolon23
Getting bad press by attempting to avoid it.
That's fracking hilarious.
The 1st Amendment says the government will not make laws abridging (limiting) the rights of freedom of "press"- the right to write or print opinion, and "speech"- the right to speak freely, amongst other rights as well, so long as said rights are contingent upon (the) individual(s) not violating the similar right(s) of (an)other(s) beyond (a) logical, reasonable degree or otherwise directly inciting civil mayhem or violence.
NO ONE MADE A LAW HERE! So 1st Amendment arguments are rather moot. And, Obama pledged "transparency" yet the Democrats have done far more, far worse than this hiding. SO go bark up the other tree.
So Republicans deny the reporters' presence because the proceedings were already being reported, then requested their removal when they arrived after being told to not be there on grounds of disorderly conduct? ... and Democrats stood idly by, not raising their own objections to the Republicans' actions? That shows the Democrats aren't outwardly forward about "being for the people", as those who erroneously refer to them as "Democratic" imply.
To help enhance your intelligence [only some of yours'- not everyones': if you're offended by the suggestion, or not, you know who I mean]: IT IS NOT "The Democratic Party", IT IS "The Democrat Party" and its members are "Democrats" and they are properly referred to as: "Democrat Mayor", "Democrat Governor", "Democrat Senator.", "Democrat Representative", "Democrat President", etc., ad nauseum.
Get it straight people: when someone says "Democratic spokesperson" or something similar, someone is trying to co-opt a similar yet different word which has a different meaning, and
THEY ARE TRYING TO MANIPULATE YOU!
Republican staffers told Democrats that a crew for ABC News had also been denied access to the event, but ABC News told HuffPost that their organization did not have any journalists assigned to cover the hearing. It is not clear what caused the confusion.
"We definitely did not have a crew on the Hill this morning to cover this hearing," an ABC News spokeswoman told HuffPost. "The individual who was turned away absolutely did not have ABC news credentials."
Originally posted by Pr0sp3r0
reply to post by FissionSurplus
Wanna work AGAINST this all ? Just ask your hubby to stop trading at once, and get back to basics : creating real economics values instead of making bucks upon the art of making bucks. In the end, you'll have helped a bit to save the Western World.
Originally posted by FissionSurplus
reply to post by Pr0sp3r0
He and I both spent our adult years doing "real jobs". I think, especially him, that he has more than paid his dues, creating whole IT departments and computerizing companies for greater efficiency. Then he got older and got let go. He has a room full of awards to show for his 14 hour days for many years of hard work and dedication, but why pay money for experience, when you can fire the older worker and get a youngster for a 1/3 of the wages?
This is how we make our living now, trading stocks, as nobody wants to hire people in their 50s anymore. What do you want us to do, starve to death and be on the street, jobless and homeless? I do not consider trading for a living to be a crime, because we do it honestly, and we are at a disadvantage against the big brokerage houses with insider information. Yet we survive, pay our bills, and contribute to our community.
Before you go judging others, I think you had better ask what circumstances caused us to go this route, instead of deciding that we are part of the problem. I'm surprised that you would write such a post with no knowledge of us whatsoever.
What have YOU done to create "real value"? Or are you just a lot of hot air on a message board?
Originally posted by jtma508
Politicians don't want witnesses and they're not timid anymore about protecting their backroom mindset. Over recent years they've been emboldened by their success in stifling dissent and ignoring the interests of the People. Just one more case of that. Can't very well bend over for their corporate owners and have it on film now can they?