DescentBB

....the First Amendment. The Freaking First Amendment? Yup.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... li=BBnb7Kz

And where were you when Reid invoked the nuclear option?:

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/1861 ... ilibusters

Will you be butt hurt when the Reps. use it?

actually, I opposed that one, for just those reasons. Although, I note, you still use the dishonest diversion as your fallback. That had ZERO to do with freedom of expression.

Is this really about freedom of expression or proper behavior in the house. I believe that if all of the members still have the right to speak in an orderly manner, then nobody’s right to freedom of expression is being taken away. This is a law making body, not a college campus.

Personally I would simply leave the floor, when the other side is acting childish, and let the world see it. But that’s just me.

Spidey wrote:Is this really about freedom of expression or proper behavior in the house. I believe that if all of the members still have the right to speak in an orderly manner, then nobody’s right to freedom of expression is being taken away. This is a law making body, not a college campus.

Personally I would simply leave the floor, when the other side is acting childish, and let the world see it. But that’s just me.

That's the best suggestion I've recently heard about this issue Spidey. A little decorum goes a long way towards some civility and maybe even a chance at getting people to work together for a change. Slick, remember, 2 sides can play the same game and the Dems really should be taking the high ground this time and not acting like a ticked off 2-year old. I can just hear what would the Dems be saying if the Republicans pulled a sit-in if they were currently in the minority.

umm, if there were some spate of public protests against aggregious legislation, sure, I'd buy the decorum matter. However, to respond to one event, by a blanket ban on FB live streaming from the floor? Sort of reeks of wanting to put a few layers of curtains up to me.

Not necessarily. The Dems could walk out en-masse and hold press conferences telling everyone what's going on. They don't need to perform a dog and pony show on the floor just to get their point across. It comes off as childish. My husband actually remembers when the public could go up into the gallery to watch congress in action. Once a few Puerto Rican terrorists shot up the place, that went by the wayside unless you were invited by your congressman. I didn't hear anyone gripe about that change.

I can see the ban on personal recording devices, because that is open to abuse, and is the exact reason it is banned in many courtrooms.

this is the People' House. That SHOULD matter to you all a bit more.

OK, how about this. There's usually a pool camera on all the time during any session. Right now, anyone can watch things on CSPAN, if they have cable or the internet. But last time the Dems pulled their little protest, Mr. God himself, Paul Ryan, had it turned off, thus prompting the live streaming by the Dems. Well, I say it has to be turned on as long as congress is in session doing the work of the people and no congressman or woman should have the power to turn it off. No hiding, no secret sessions.

Is a "sit in" considered "in session"?

Seems like a strange way to legislate to me.

Spidey wrote:Is a "sit in" considered "in session"?

Seems like a strange way to legislate to me.

pay attention to that body. A lot of strange stuff happens.