'Gasland' Journalists Arrested At Hearing By Order Of House Republicans

Wow, the republicans squash 1st amendment rights and the board basically goes silent, some of the uninformed even go as far as to defend the House republicans. This is truly unbelievable partisanship, and a big reason why this country is in so much trouble. If a democrat had done this there would be calls for his execution for treason, what a bunch of crap. Allen West tells the liberals they need to get the hell out of the USA, I guess the constitution only counts if you are a conservative. There are some folks that need to seriously wake up, but then again the founding fathers never meant for everyone to be equal or they would have written the constitution that way. The Conservative Republicans in this country are nothing but a freaking joke. Obama will be laughing for four more years.

Thanks to NDAA this is now totally legal. These guys are obviously dangerous terrorists. Get em in custody. This is now how the world works? And I thought it looked bad on paper. Positively frightening in practice.

ETA Watch GasLand to get an even better understanding of why this happened.

WOW

We need to get another source for more info. Huffington is bad about not reporting context. I wonder what Fox did to cause this?

I probably don't agree with Fox but that does not matter with this. I'd like to think he did something to cause this Huffington is withholding. If not, this is a major screw up.

I'll use my head and withhold judgement until I have enough information to have an opinion.

reply to post by BubbaJoe


Then you know the context not in the article? Could you please post a link? What did Fox do to cause this? Where did you find what you know we don't?

Your hatred of Conservatives is hardly helpful in explaining what happened.

I first want to say that i do not agree with this happening OR the legal justification behind it, HOWEVER, i recall reading here on ATS, somewhere, that there is, unfortunately, a (legal) policy within the House/Senate that explicitly prohibits filming of an open session without a permit/prior permission.

In other words, you can't just go in and start filming, even though it is a public forum/meeting. Add another blow to the government permitting you to exercise your first amendment rights in a public place.

Let me see if i can find something, and i'l hopefully be back. If anyone else finds it, please post.

Haven't yet found the actual law, but i found this Cameras of any type are prohibited in the galleries.

Still looking for the actual ordinance.

Originally posted by Blaine91555
reply to post by BubbaJoe

 

Then you know the context not in the article? Could you please post a link? What did Fox do to cause this? Where did you find what you know we don't?

Your hatred of Conservatives is hardly helpful in explaining what happened.

While I realize the Huff Post is not the most reliable source around, I have been following the story for a good deal of the day, and am basing my opinions and comments on my own observations. The HuffPo articles has some pretty good quotes from Dem members of the sub-committee, and apparently while there are official channels to request stuff like this, they rules are often not followed, and then the lie about an ABC team also turned away, when ABC said they had no one there to cover this story. While outraged by this incident, I am even more outraged by the silence on here, as well as those defending this action. I believe the far right only believes in the constitution when it benefits them, this is where my outrage lies. I am a fiscal conservative and social liberal, and have very hard libertarian leanings, so as far as hatred for conservatives, no not really, but I do hate stupid people.

What actually pissed me off more than anything was that I had to go search for this thread. Had this been a Dem headed sub-committee having a right wing pundit or film producer arrested, the outrage on here would have been out of control.

USA Today and Politico

Update at 6:56 p.m. ET: Fox was released about 3 p.m. and is due in court Feb. 15, Polico now says. He told Politico that he had "submitted several formal requests to tape the hearing, but that those requests were denied since his crew did not have Capitol media credentials." He said he knew there was a chance he would be arrested. Additionally, an ABC spokeswoman said the network did not assign anyone to the hearing, indicating someone was impersonating a film crew.

Apparently, there is a bit more to this story, but the idea of a non national security issue under discussion by congress cannot be filmed by a journalist is an issue, and I do believe they have violated this gentleman's 1st amendment rights.


ETA: This was a public hearing.

OK. Fox tried to force his way in with cameras and had no credentials. Of course they arrested him. He could have been a nut about to kill somebody.

He was released without a fine and charged with a minor offense.

ABC News is reporting it as an "Entertainment" story because Fox is not a journalist. They say nothing about their people so as usual the Huffington is sensationalizing and might be lying about the supposed ABC crew. Always double check Huffington stuff. They do this a lot.

Any Security person guarding Congress would be fired if they let somebody without credentials crash a Hearing for a publicity stunt. Huffington may have been in on it.

Originally posted by Blaine91555
OK. Fox tried to force his way in with cameras and had no credentials. Of course they arrested him. He could have been a nut about to kill somebody.

He was released without a fine and charged with a minor offense.

ABC News is reporting it as an "Entertainment" story because Fox is not a journalist.

The funny thing is, there is no "requirement" to be a journalist. True, he might not have had his "credentials," but "credentials" no more make a person a "journalist" than drivers license means someone can actually drive. There is NO requirement or license to be a journalist.

But, yeah, dude was kinda bringing it on himself, acting that way.

is it just me or does the charge not make sense? he was charged with "unlawful entry" isn't it a PUBLIC hearing? doesn't that mean ANYONE from the public can come into view it? regardless of the camera rules as stated it seems highly overboard to arrest him.

reply to post by Blaine91555


No he didn't try to force his way in, he walked in the door, it was a public hearing. He had cameras and therein sat the problem. No he was not credentialed, however he had applied for them, and was denied. The hearing was basically the oil companies defending fracking while Fox has very publically opposed it with a documentary film. Much like Allen West's comment, another case of the republicans wanting to deny information or opinions from the other side. Please don't misunderstand, would be equally upset if it were the Dems that had done this. As far as the ABC crew, that little tidbit came from a Repub press release and ABC has denied that.

I don't care which side of the aisle you sit on, this is a 1st amendment issue, and a serious one.

This is quite interesting. The initial claims that an ABC crew was denied access is turning out to be false; or at least ABC is denying it.

While the rules are clear in regards to the use of television cameras and (as ridiculous and unnecessary I hold credential-ism), the House rules require it. Mr. Fox's claims that his First Amendment rights were violated is hubris but the actions of the committee initiating an arrest is just as much so.

The subcommittee rules give some latitude though on the situation. For instance, maybe they believed that Mr. Fox's intentions were not to document and capture the meeting but to distort what is said for his purpose. This would violate the subcommittee rule that demands decorum and respect.

A)distort the objects and purposes of the meeting or hearing or the activities of Committee Members in
connection with that meeting or hearing or in connection with the general work of the Committee or of
the House;

What we are not hearing is what happened before he entered the chambers. Was he informed that he could not film, but was still allowed to attend? We don't know. Seems information on this will continue to trickle out.

To be clear on my stance: The committee overreacted and Mr. Fox's First Amendment rights were not violated. The unlawful entry charge to me means something happened prior to him entering the hearing.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
This is quite interesting. The initial claims that an ABC crew was denied access is turning out to be false; or at least ABC is denying it.

While the rules are clear in regards to the use of television cameras and (as ridiculous and unnecessary I hold credential-ism), the House rules require it. Mr. Fox's claims that his First Amendment rights were violated is hubris but the actions of the committee initiating an arrest is just as much so.

The subcommittee rules give some latitude though on the situation. For instance, maybe they believed that Mr. Fox's intentions were not to document and capture the meeting but to distort what is said for his purpose. This would violate the subcommittee rule that demands decorum and respect.

A)distort the objects and purposes of the meeting or hearing or the activities of Committee Members in
connection with that meeting or hearing or in connection with the general work of the Committee or of
the House;

What we are not hearing is what happened before he entered the chambers. Was he informed that he could not film, but was still allowed to attend? We don't know. Seems information on this will continue to trickle out.

To be clear on my stance: The committee overreacted and Mr. Fox's First Amendment rights were not violated. The unlawful entry charge to me means something happened prior to him entering the hearing.

While I can buy a good deal of your arguments, and can agree the the committee overreacted. I do believe 1st amendment rights were violated. A public hearing, not involving national security, I thought our government was supposed to be transparent. Why can't a public hearing be recorded, it might do wonders for local government.

Originally posted by BubbaJoe
While I can buy a good deal of your arguments, and can agree the the committee overreacted. I do believe 1st amendment rights were violated. A public hearing, not involving national security, I thought our government was supposed to be transparent. Why can't a public hearing be recorded, it might do wonders for local government.

edit on 2/3/2012 by BubbaJoe because: ETA: if the government, or a particular party had nothing to hide, why worry about the cameras. If the comments were portrayed out of context, they would have a defense.

They hid nothing; the hearing was being recorded in accordance to House rules. Mr. Fox's First Amendment rights were not violated -- they were not barring him from the hearing, but rather his apparent disregard for the committee's and House's rules on video taping.

Now if they were to toss him out of the hearing while he was documenting the hearing in any other means than video taping I would be right there in it being a violation of his First Amendment rights.