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

[August]

"Highly regarded" by who? I never heard of this guy.

[Krauter]

No idea. Saw this on reddit and just thought it might cause an interesting discussion.

[Rockstar]

Appears to be cameras mounted on the wall in the background, now whether they are recording the hearing remains to be seen. I also took note nobody had any problem with the person recording the interaction between the authorities and the journalist. Which leaves me to conclude 1st ammendment rights are not the issue here. Rather this oh so "highly regarded" journalist should have read the sign before he set up his camera. It reads as follows: MEMBERS AND COMITTEE STAFF ONLY BEYOND THIS POINT. Even public hearings have rules.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

Appears to be cameras mounted on the wall in the background, now whether they are recording the hearing remains to be seen. I also took note nobody had any problem with the person recording the interaction between the authorities and the journalist. Which leaves me to conclude 1st ammendment rights are not the issue here. Rather this oh so "highly regarded" jack nut journalist should have read the sign before he set up his camera. It reads as follows: MEMBERS AND COMITTEE STAFF ONLY BEYOND THIS POINT. Even public hearings have rules.

It couldn't have anything to do with our corrupt politicians trying to prevent any publicity of their corruption. Nope. Not a bit.

While he is at fault for attempting to be there without a permit, it makes you wonder why they wouldn't have approved his permit this time, which by all indications, seems to be a fairly routine thing. Especially given the quote from Jerry Nadler at the end of the article that states that most people filming these sorts of proceedings don't have a permit.

[Krauter]

Read the updates, it said that he did actually apply for a permit the day before

[gimpy117]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

It couldn't have anything to do with our corrupt politicians trying to prevent any publicity of their corruption. Nope. Not a bit.

While he is at fault for attempting to be there without a permit, it makes you wonder why they wouldn't have approved his permit this time, which by all indications, seems to be a fairly routine thing. Especially given the quote from Jerry Nadler at the end of the article that states that most people filming these sorts of proceedings don't have a permit.

why do you need a permit to film the government anyways? Unless it's some top secret meeting I can't see why american citizens should be disallowed that. But then again, the GOP would probably love anybody else filming, so long as it's Fox news

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by August

"Highly regarded" by who? I never heard of this guy.

Apparently the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences, as it says in the article that Gasland was nominated for an Academy Award.

[August]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Apparently the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences, as it says in the article that Gasland was nominated for an Academy Award.

Well that don't prove nothing, they gave Michael Moore one too.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by August

Well that don't prove nothing, they gave Michael Moore one too.

Titanic too.

[Gargamel]

I did see the film. Good documentary.

[CaptainHaplo]

He was told he would not meet the criteria for a press pass. Whether he applied at that point or not isn't the question. However, what is important to note is that the press credentials are not determined by the committee, or lawmakers at all (of either party). The "group" that decides press crendentials is made up of other, established journalists representing the various major networks. The group has its own standards, and does not allow press credentials for any "film" work.

The cameras that are in there are for a live webcast that was done during the hearing.

It couldn't have anything to do with our corrupt politicians trying to prevent any publicity of their corruption. Nope. Not a bit.

It was a public hearing, was recorded and broadcast. To claim this was about hiding corruption is simply an biased, partisan attack given this is all "by order of house republicans". We can be bigger than that, can't we?

[soopaman2]

Funny a staunch enemy of fracking, versus a government body who kisses big oils ass, as if cupid shot it with a million arrows.

But it is ok, there was a sign there prohibiting our government from being responsible to its electorate. Or recording their corporate posterior lickings.

I love how you far righties think. just don't be surprised when the unwashed masses show up at your door with pitchforks and rifles.

(single shot muzzle loaders like the old days, lefties are traditional too)

ALL GOVERNMENT PROCEEDINGS SHOULD BE OPEN. IT IS THEIR DUTY TO US.

Scared?

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

It was a public hearing, was recorded and broadcast. To claim this was about hiding corruption is simply an biased, partisan attack given this is all "by order of house republicans". We can be bigger than that, can't we?

It's not partisan at all. And you ignore the facts.

• We have a Congressman and a lawyer who say that these hearings are recorded all the time by those without permits. Now think, Hap, why would they do things differently in this particular hearing? Think long and hard.
  
• If he was there strictly as a videographer, why would they deny his permit? And why would committee Republicans not want this filmed by ABC or Fox? Why do they want to keep this particular hearing buried on C-SPAN?

This isn't about credentials. It's hiding behind some arbitrary set of rules so as to cover up corruption. Maybe failing to smell the stink here means that you're the one being partisan, I don't know. I do however have a sneaking suspicion that you'd be howling if this were Dem's shutting the media out of a hearing on Planned Parenthood.