Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Communications Government Social Networks Facebook Media Network Networking Software The Internet United States News Hardware Technology

C-SPAN Uses Periscope and Facebook Live To Broadcast The House Sit-In (washingtonpost.com) 350

An anonymous reader writes from a report via The Washington Post: C-SPAN has made history for resorting to Periscope to live stream a sit-in on the House floor. C-SPAN spokesman Howard Mortman said: "This is the first time we've ever shown video from the House floor picked up by a Periscope account." C-SPAN had to rely on Periscope for a direct feed to House proceedings because these proceedings aren't exactly official. The Washington Post reports: "Earlier today, Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) led a sit-in on the House floor to push for action on gun control, following the failure of four gun measures earlier this week in the Senate. According to an official at the House Recording Studio, the cameras that C-SPAN commonly uses to broadcast House business are 'in recess subject to the call of the chair.' No approved video feed, no problem: C-SPAN has been piping in the Periscope feed from Rep. Scott Peters, a California Democrat." The feed hasn't been as reliable as C-SPAN's official House-proceedings feed. "Well, the Periscope video froze up again," said a C-SPAN anchor. And a bit later: "We're still having some issues with that video feed." At around 3:30 p.m., C-SPAN switched to a Facebook feed where viewers could hear and watch Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) rip the "cowards who run this chamber" for failing to turn on the microphones.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

C-SPAN Uses Periscope and Facebook Live To Broadcast The House Sit-In

Comments Filter:
  • by Calydor ( 739835 ) on Wednesday June 22, 2016 @04:29PM (#52369563)

    I want to write a lot of interesting and thought-provoking things here, but I'm just stuck on that one thing in the title.

    Secret. Government. Proceedings.

    Really, guys? Tell me again how your country is a free and democratic nation.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 22, 2016 @04:32PM (#52369595)

      I wonder how many Slashdotters are prepared to fight to the death to keep their browsing History concealed from the FBI, but are more than willing have their 2nd Amendment Rights abrogated by using a list which has no Due Process to be either listed or removed?

      • I wonder how many Slashdotters are prepared to fight to the death to keep their browsing History concealed from the FBI, but are more than willing have their 2nd Amendment Rights abrogated by using a list which has no Due Process to be either listed or removed?

        Today I learned that "not wanting people to find out about my furry porn fetish" is the polar opposite of "not wanting to be shot by a crazy person with a gun."

        • Today I learned that "not wanting people to find out about my furry porn fetish" is the polar opposite of "not wanting to be shot by a crazy person with a gun."

          And in a few moments you might learn that "banning the sale of weapons that scare me" doesn't equate to "not being able to be shot by a crazy person with a gun." And then, in a few seconds, that the "right to privacy" (which is not explicit in the US Constitution) is on a par with the "right to keep and bear arms" -- which is.

      • a list which has no Due Process to be either listed or removed?

        Would you object if there were due process to be listed or removed?

        How would the due process to be listed work? Someone on the terrorism watch list hasn't committed a crime yet, and they're innocent until they have committed a crime, so how could due process be applied to bar an innocent person from their 2nd amendment rights? Can you suggest any mechanism whereby a suspected "lone wolf terrorist" could be denied a gun purchase through due process? (You can't really charge a lone wolf with conspiracy if the

        • FWIW, the conditions for speech to not fall under the first amendment is that the speech must advocate "imminent lawless action" [wikipedia.org]. So, your co-worker spouting off about how he wants to kill infidels is legal under the first amendment because it is not imminent. He's just advocating lawless action at some unspecified time in the future.

        • How would the due process to be listed work? Someone on the terrorism watch list hasn't committed a crime yet, and they're innocent until they have committed a crime, so how could due process be applied to bar an innocent person from their 2nd amendment rights?

          Why would you bar an innocent, legally competent person from their Second Amendment rights?

          If you think that every non-criminal should be allowed to purchase firearms, then just cut to the chase and say so.

          That's what the Constitution says. Depriving

          • Why would you bar an innocent, legally competent person from their Second Amendment rights?

            Because they scare me, that's why. My right not to be scared of you trumps your right to keep and bear arms, don't you know?

            One of the stupidest comments I ever heard was from a Portland OR area politician (state rep, I think it was) who claimed that she was scared of people who have concealed carry permits. This ignores the fact that getting a CCP requires a vetting by the local sheriff and, the last time I checked, character references from three people. It made me wonder exactly how she behaved in publi

    • by epyT-R ( 613989 )

      I agree. It should be freer than it is. That's what happens when the constitution is systematically ignored. There are plenty of 'democratic republics' where every government meeting is considered a state secret.

    • by msauve ( 701917 ) on Wednesday June 22, 2016 @04:46PM (#52369683)
      "Tell me again how your country is a free and democratic nation."

      How about how so-called "civil rights leaders" are staging a sit-in with the goal of taking away civil rights?

      War is Peace
      Freedom is Slavery
      Ignorance is Strength
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Darinbob ( 1142669 )

        They are not advocating the ban of all privately held weapons. All civil rights will remain intact. We already have limits on all other rights, free speech is not absolute for instance and neither is freedom of religious activity. So having reasonable checks on gun ownership can be allowed without it being a removal of a civil right.

        • by DaHat ( 247651 )

          They are not advocating the ban of all privately held weapons.

          Nice straw-man you've got there. They aren't doing so in legislative form at present... but I guess for the moment we could ignore the wishes to do just that of some of those pushing the latest wave of bills.

          All civil rights will remain intact.

          Q: Is buying/owning a firearm a civil rights?
          A: Yes.

          Q: If the democrats are successful in passing their latest wet dream, will that deny some civil rights and due process of law?
          A: Yes.

          Q: How can 'all civil

    • by raymorris ( 2726007 ) on Wednesday June 22, 2016 @04:46PM (#52369687) Journal

      Nothing is proceeding. A minority faction of the minority party (Democrats) decided they didn't like the compromise bill, so they shut down the House entirely.

      The bipartisan bill that the speaker planned to take to vote would prevent the ~10,00 citizens** and 90,000 foreigners on the terrorism "no-fly"* list from buying firearms without approval, and allow them to appeal the denial in court.

      Rather than accomplish SOMETHING that's maybe somewhat reasonable, these 60 or so Democrats decided to shut down Congress until they get their way and ban scary looking guns.

      * The "no-fly" list doesn't stop people from flying. It means they can't fly into or out of the country.

      ** The US has about 300 million citizens, meaning that on in 30,000 is on the list.

      • Nothing is proceeding. A minority faction of the minority party (Democrats) decided they didn't like the compromise bill, so they shut down the House entirely.

        The bipartisan bill that the speaker planned to take to vote would prevent the ~10,00 citizens** and 90,000 foreigners on the terrorism "no-fly"* list from buying firearms without approval, and allow them to appeal the denial in court.

        Rather than accomplish SOMETHING that's maybe somewhat reasonable, these 60 or so Democrats decided to shut down Congress until they get their way and ban scary looking guns.

        * The "no-fly" list doesn't stop people from flying. It means they can't fly into or out of the country.

        ** The US has about 300 million citizens, meaning that on in 30,000 is on the list.

        I have to say, denying someone from purchasing a gun based on a secret list seems 'kinda... you know... wrong?

        And also, why is always democrats trying to do an end-run around the democratic process?

        We don't see Trump supporters blocking highway ramps and flipping police cars when a vote doesn't go the way they want. Why do the democrats think that's appropriate?

        Riot in the streets when the government does something bad, yes. White cop shoots an unarmed black kid... go for it! But protest and riot when a can

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by Game Genie ( 656324 )
          You mean shit like shutting down the government repeatedly to attempt to defund Obamacare? Shit like corporations are people and money is speech? Fuck you.
        • I pretty much agree with everything you said. You seem like you might be interesting to talk to, so I'm going to express the opposing view on one point and I'd like to get your response.

          > I have to say, denying someone from purchasing a gun based on a secret list seems 'kinda... you know... wrong?

          My first reaction, my gut feeling, is the same as yours. HOWEVER, which of these portions is clearly a bad idea?:

          a) Counter-terrorism authorities maintain a list of people for whom they have reason to suspect p

          • I pretty much agree with everything you said. You seem like you might be interesting to talk to, so I'm going to express the opposing view on one point and I'd like to get your response.

            I have no problem with the government having secrets, and I have no problem with secret lists. It's pretty-much expected that criminal investigation has to be done with a measure of secrecy in order to succeed. Terrorism is criminal behaviour, so having a list of suspected terrorists is also not a problem.

            The problem arises when there are restrictions without due process.

            Saying that someone is prevented from flying, for instance, should be done using due process. It should be evidence presented to the judic

    • Actually they're no longer in session. When the Dems said they were gonna do the sit-in the Republicans said "K, we're gonna go home then."
    • Actually, it is not a government proceeding - at least not any more than if those same representatives went to a restaurant.

      By the rules of the House of Representatives the house is in recess. (and the cameras and mics have always been turned off when the house is at recess)

    • by Etcetera ( 14711 ) on Wednesday June 22, 2016 @06:49PM (#52370591) Homepage

      I want to write a lot of interesting and thought-provoking things here, but I'm just stuck on that one thing in the title.

      Secret. Government. Proceedings.

      Really, guys? Tell me again how your country is a free and democratic nation.

      Well, because it's not a proceeding. Anyone who tells you otherwise doesn't understand Congressional proceedings.

      The House is in recess. It's not even in the Committee of the Whole... So as far as proceedings go, they could just as easily be having a slumber party in their offices.

      The Chairman didn't really have a choice... the Members were out of order. He could have:
      a) had the Sergeant-at-Arms "enforce order", meaning kicking them out of the room for not being in their chairs properly,
      b) call a recess

      On the whole, B seems like a simpler option.

  • Someone should give one of those Dems a VidiU.

  • by turkeydance ( 1266624 ) on Wednesday June 22, 2016 @04:40PM (#52369653)
    any of them facing a wall?
  • the Democrats who voted against one of the bills.

    I wonder if he put that up. (Need to look up if he was one of those who voted against the bill.)
  • by jabberw0k ( 62554 ) on Wednesday June 22, 2016 @05:06PM (#52369833) Homepage Journal
    Had to search for what "Periscope" is. And from their website, apparently it's another silo in the cloud that can't be viewed at all from a normal computer?
  • Staging a sit in, acting like children, because they can't punish people without due process. These are the elected officials that run our country.

    What a time to be alive.

  • News feed should read as follows:

    Elected officials failing to force-feed obnoxious and unconstitutional laws onto the people of America throw a tantrum on the house floor. Broadcasting of this childish behavior is discouraged by the more adult members of the house and senate forcing the emotionally affected to resort to broadcasting their distress on a popular internet streaming service, switching to Facebook when the prior service shut down the feed due to TOS violations.

  • by BlueCoder ( 223005 ) on Wednesday June 22, 2016 @05:55PM (#52370235)

    They are completely anti American and are violating their oath of office. They promised to protect and defend the constitution. The 2nd amendment is clear enough. It starts with one preamble that justifies it. But the meat of it is clear: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

    Keep means to have on your property, Bear means to have in your possession.

    Registration and licensing is legal though I would disagree that fees for licenses are.

    It is reasonable if you have a fire arm the government can mandate education. You can have the gun but if you fail to be educated they can lock you up. The education is also reasonable in that if you break the law in legal use of it that you can not plead ignorance of the law.

    Arms are tools that can harm one or a handful of men. That includes knives, swords, axes, morning stars, and even automatic guns and grenades. Not nuclear weapons or tanks or fighter jets. Not biological weapons such as small pox. Probably tear gas grenades and smoke bombs.

    The problem is that constitutional amendments as far a civil rights became the law of the land superseding state statutes. There should have been a constitutional amendment clarifying what past amendments are federally binding and which are state binding as well can requiring future amendments to clarify themselves. The 2nd amendment was meant to only be federally binding. That is why it was so short. The states were to individually decide how to regulate arms.

    The only discussion they can have is repealing the 2nd amendment. Anything else is treasonous in my opinion. And to be quite frank I don't see why they are so hesitant to start the movement. Simply clarify in another amendment that the 2nd amendment applies to the federal government and that individual states have the right to regulate them as they see fit. In other words to do what the founding fathers of the 2nd amendment meant.

    P.S. The second amendment wasn't about hunting. It was only partially about defending yourself from crime. It wasn't about people being able to rise up in a civil war against a corrupt federal government.

    It not even really war, more about people being able to put up a gorilla/terrorist resistance. If one group wants to impose their will against another group then it's going to get really expensive and bloody. It's what the declaration of independence was about. Mistrust of strong governments. With the 2nd amendment if some states wanted to succeed from the USA it would take a long resistance. Imagine if the first US civil war had lasted 50 years. Imagine if even after we had won those states still resisted.

    • by bongey ( 974911 )
      A license for speaking public, for the press, for a jury trial , religion?
      FYI last constitutional amendment took 200 years to ratify, so not in our lifetime. It would be easier for a state to leave united states than overturning the 2nd.
      • FYI last constitutional amendment took 200 years to ratify, so not in our lifetime.

        Just because one amendment (the 27th) took that long to ratify doesn't say anything about how long a new amendment would take. The 26th was ratified in 3 months.

        Overturning the second amendment won't happen anytime soon, but it's because doing so doesn't have the support of the voting public, not because the process itself has to take a long time.

Moneyliness is next to Godliness. -- Andries van Dam

Working...