No Dems to stop them. WI Repugs ban free speech, signs, recording, clapping in Capitol

[Snoutport]

If it wasn't obvious before...the Republicans love this country so much that the minute there are no Democrats there to stop them (in Wisconsin this time) they make a ban against Constitutional rights at the statehouse: NO free speech, NO signs, NO tape, NO cameras, NO phones, ipads, clapping, cheering, talking and more in the Capitol. Phew, now the Reupblicans won't have to listen to anyone but each other.

That is the future under Republican rule. If they don't like what you say, then they ban all AMERICAN rights of free speech.

These people don't deserve the right to be living in America.

[opihimoimoi]

1. Greedy Selfish Ignoramouses

[L. Coyote]

40. LINK to the article here:

http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_44b6ca48-498a-11e0-8a55-001cc4c03286.html

[FBaggins]

2. Cell phones are a constitutional right now?

That's a bit of a stretch.

Most of the new rules already exist in most statehouses (as well as the US Congress).

It's the obvious connection with not wanting to be disturbed by the protestors that makes it look bad.

[Viking12]

4. Banning cell use could be logically construed as overbroad prior restraint.

The outright, blanket ban is broader than necessary to address the supposed problem.

[FBaggins]

8. Has it ever been deemed so in other states?

Seems like a pretty standard rule to me. The only surprise is that it wasn't there years ago.

[Viking12]

22. I've been unable to find such bans on cell use in other states.

Not saying they don't exist, but the 'rules' aren't readily available online. Do you have any links showing these rules are in place?

[FBaggins]

23. Here are the rules for the US Capitol galleries

The following are allowed in the Capitol Visitor Center and the Capitol, but not in the Senate and House Galleries:

Battery-operated electronic devices (Medical devices are permitted.)
Cameras
Creams, lotions, or perfumes
Strollers
Video recorders or any type of recording device


http://www.senate.gov/visiting/common/generic/new/safety_security.htm


You also can't read, take notes, or applaud, and must have a gallery pass issued by a congressman.

[Viking12]

28. Thanks.

I hadn't read through the specifics of the new rules at the WI Capitol. I mistakenly assumed at first that the ban was Capitol-wide rather than specific to the gallery while in session.

Nevertheless, it appears the rules prohibiting video recording violates WI Statute 19.90.

[FBaggins]

30. I doubt that 19.90 is much of a constraint

Guess who gets to decide whether or not it "interferes with the conduct of the meeting or the rights of the participants" and whether they made a "reasonable effort"?

That's right. The legislature... and it's unlikely that the decision is open to review.

[Viking12]

31. You're flat out wrong there. The Courts ultimately decide, not the legislature.

Sure the Legislature will set the bar initially, but given the track record overreach by this Republican lead Legislature and the assertive activism on the part of the opposition, it will only be a matter before the question ends up in a courtroom.

[FBaggins]

33. You should re-read the state constitution.

Each house is the sole determiner of the rules of their own proceedings. This includes under what circumstances (of even whether) outsiders can enter the chamber.

[Viking12]

34. This has nothing to do with the proceedings in the chambers

It is an open meeting law, historically taken very seriously here.

[FBaggins]

35. Of course it does.

How can you say that a rule that's specifically about behavior in their own chamber has nothing to do with that provision?

Did you read 19.87?

No provision of this subchapter which conflicts with a rule of the senate or assembly or joint rule of the legislature shall apply to a meeting conducted in compliance with such rule.
(On edit - I'm npot sure where the subchapter begins)

The original point is still the most relevant however. 19.90 merely says that they need to make "reasonable" efforts and that the rule doesn't apply where it might conflict with the proceedings. The determination of whether or not it's interfering with the proceedings can only be made by the legislature.

[Viking12]

36. You're wrong.

The Legislature does not have the authority you claim based on the 'proceedings' clause in the state Constitution.

Article IV
Rules; contempts; expulsion. SECTION 8. Each house
may determine the rules of its own proceedings, punish for contempt
and disorderly behavior, and with the concurrence of two−
thirds of all the members elected, expel a member; but no member
shall be expelled a second time for the same cause.

Annot: Courts have no jurisdiction to review legislative rules of proceeding, which are
those rules having “to do with the process the legislature uses to propose or pass
legislation or how it determines the qualifications of its members.” Milwaukee
Journal Sentinel v. DOA, 2009 WI 79, 319 Wis. 2d 439, 768 N.W.2d 700, 07−1160.

Moreover, the 'open meetings clause' under which 19.90 would be adjudicated clearly would put the burden of proof on the Legislature to show necessity for the recording ban.

Journals; open doors; adjournments. SECTION 10.
Each house shall keep a journal of its proceedings and publish
the same, except such parts as require secrecy. The doors of each
house shall be kept open except when the public welfare shall
require secrecy. Neither house shall, without consent of the
other, adjourn for more than three days.

Again, the Legislature may take the position that recording interferes with the proceedings, but it most certainly can be challenged in court.

[FBaggins]

37. That challenge wouldn't happen to occur in a state court...

...that was covered by Supreme Court Rule chapter 61, would it? :)
The court seems to be under the impression that they're the ones who get to make the comparable rules in the courtroom. Think they won't defer to the legislature in the legislative chambers?

[Viking12]

38. I'm positive.

I've got other things to do (write letters, organize recall petitioners) so you can do your own research but there is a VERY lengthy history of the courts supporting the open meetings laws in WI. I see no reason why it would be any different now were such a case to come before them.

I'm done w/ this thread. Enjoy your night and WI thanks you for your support!

[FBaggins]

41. Here's another reason (from that same decision)

"Accordingly, courts will not intermeddle in purely internal legislative proceedings, even when the proceedings at issue are contained in a statute."

It's also relevant to look at the grounds for that particular ruling. They had a tough time determining whether 111.92(1)(a) was covered as a "rule" of their proceedings... but that was a LONG way from being as clear as an actual rule for what goes on in their chamber during, you know, actual proceedings.

there is a VERY lengthy history of the courts supporting the open meetings laws in WI.

You mean "except where they apply to their own court proceedings" ?

I hope you have a good evening as well. Knock 'em dead!

[Snoutport]

42. Thank you! And good luck with your recall!

[bigmonkey]

46. You can't take notes!!!

That's absolutely insane.

[Snoutport]

5. Phone= camera, recording, translator, libraries on-line, rules of order on line...

cell phones are now a whole lot more than a phone. They have basically just shuttered the use of social networking. Doesn't it bother you that no one is allowed to record what happens in the state house? Doesn't his include TV?

Do you think it is wrong to be able to share what is being said by their elected officials?

[Snoutport]

6. How is this:

A person doesn't speak English. They translate a word in the capital building with their IPOD. They go to jail.

That's OK?

[FBaggins]

9. I don't like it in the context they obviously intend it...

...but the rule itself doesn't strike me as unusual.

As I said, I'm pretty sure that this is the longstanding rule for the US Congress and most statehouses. It certainly isn't an unconstitutional abridgment of free speech rights.

[WolfoftheWild]

16. so, you're defending the Repigs?

[FBaggins]

18. Not a bit.

I'm just responding to some wild overreaction.

People seem to frequently misunderstand "free speech" as "do whatever I want, whenever I want, and they have to provide me with a platform while I do it". That isn't free speech.

[Snoutport]

43. wild over reaction?

when you add this to everything else they have been doing...this is not wild over reaction!

[FBaggins]

44. Opposing their plans is not "wild overreaction"

Sorry if my comment was read that way.

The "wild" part refers to leaping to the conclusion that anything they do which we oppose must be unconstitutional, illegal, and a violation of basic rights. There's a whole spectrum of bad policy and bad politics that is, nevertheless, legal. It's possible to create rules that restrict a protester's ability to disrupt a process without removing that protester's free speech rights.

[TBF]

25. That is what ignored does best. nt

[Bandit]

19. How do IPads do that?

:shrug:

[Viking12]

3. As I understand it, the ACLU has stepped up to offer representation

As I understand it, the ACLU has stepped up to offer representation for anyone that has had their civil rights violated. Hopefully, someone will be charged with one of these right infringing 'statutes' and the courts will overturn the 'laws' passed by the Constitution hating politicians.

[Larkspur]

7. Time to RECALL these Repuke a-holes

If we can successfully replace these Repukes with good Democrats, the crisis will end and Walker will be a lame duck until he is recalled.

[reformist2]

10. Wait, did they actually do this??? Link, please.

[shraby]

14. Here's your link

<http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_44b6ca48-498a-11e0-8a55-001cc4c03286.html>

[OneGrassRoot]

11. Is there a link so I can share, please? Thanks. :) n/t

[hobbit709]

12. Even if they were there, it woldn't have mattered. They'd be outvoted.

[FBaggins]

13. Not necessarily.

Keep in mind that there are some actions that go too far even for some republicans.

With the Democrats gone, you only need a majority of the republicans in order to win a vote.

So the ten most conservative members now run the place.

[reformist2]

15. Well played, GOP. It's time to put all this energy into the recall petitions, anyway!

Don't get me wrong. I don't agree with the new rules, but I say let them have this "win". Our goal shouldn't be to occupy the capitol building, it ought to be getting rid of these Repugs!

[Snoutport]

27. But it isn't just this win...the ban goes on until it can be repealed

This isn't about occupying the capitol building! This is about making free expression in the capitol building illegal until the Republicans lose their majority. It could go on for years!

[n2doc]

17. The image of a silent, isolated statehouse ringed with rent-a-cop mercs

Isn't going to look too good during the next election and/or recalls....

[Canuckistanian]

20. They can do that without a proper quorum?

If they can't pass the union-busting budget bill, how can they do this?

[FBaggins]

21. A frequent error. They HAVE a quorum.

The standard quorum requirement is a simple majority. It's only higher for financial bills.

[Canuckistanian]

29. Ah...

It's almost the same here in Canada. A government can't be subjected to a non-confidence motion unless it's over a budget.

[Jester Messiah]

24. That's what civil disobedience is for.

But just let those bastards push too hard... they might just find themselves on the wrong end of an old fashioned pitchforks and torches mob, and who would pity them?

[TBF]

26. Typical for repubs. K&R nt

[musette_sf]

32. They don't call it the Right Wing Echo Chamber

for nothing.

[L. Coyote]

39. "No ... reading of books or newspapers" What, are they going to burn them?

[Snoutport]

47. why burn when you can ban?

[Brickbat]

45. I hope people don't follow these "rules." Because what a joke this has turned into.

[Snoutport]

48. the people are back in the capitol so I think they are breaking them as we speak!