GOP's Proposed Ban on Congressional Live-Streaming Is Probably Unconstitutional

According to Bloomberg, the move is in response to the House Democrats' protest in support of a gun-control bill last June. When Ryan shut down the official C-SPAN cameras during the Democratic members' staged a 24-hour sit-in, Democrats started streaming it on Facebook Live and tweeting out photos.

If the rule passes, as part of a package of new decorum guidelines, violators would face a $500 fine for the first offense and $2,500 for subsequent offenses. The final version of the rules will be voted on when Congress reconvenes on January 3. "These changes will help ensure that order and decorum are preserved in the House of Representatives so lawmakers can do the people's work," a spokesperson for Ryan told Bloomberg.

But the rule change would also have the effect of cutting off one of the very few tools Democrats have to oppose Donald Trump and the Republican's anti-civil rights agenda. This implication is surely not lost on Ryan: His party controls the House, Senate, and the Oval Office.

"It's telling that the Republicans are trying to create a media blackout, especially at this moment when we're looking to the Democrats to be more obstructionist because they don't control a single branch of government," said Astra Taylor, a documentary filmmaker and the author of The People's Platform: Taking Back Power and Culture in the Digital Age. Taylor is currently working on a new film that explores the concept of democracy.

Although the Democrat's stunt this summer was on behalf of a bill that would have limited gun use by people on the "no-fly list," which is racist and arbitrary, the tactic of live streaming protests could actually be useful for the virtually powerless Democrats—and the public.

Taylor is wary about the how politicians in Congress could ultimately use live streaming to further "self-aggrandizing" goals or to merely manufacture the appearance of dissent, but, she says, "Obstructionist politics are called for under a Trump administration. It's really important."

Michael Macleod-Ball, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union, says that Ryan's proposal indeed "limits transparency in the workings of government." The punitive measure might also be unconstitutional, he adds. Under the Speech and Debate clause, members of Congress are protected against liability of any kind for actions that fall within their legislative duties, according to Macleod-Ball.

"The question would be whether the actions proscribed under the proposed rule comprise 'legislative duties.' In the past, I think most commentators would have said that anything that is said or done on the floor of the legislative body would be protected," he said, explaining that the Democrats could take this matter to court. "But whether it's constitutional or not, rules that limit the public's access to and understanding of such activities [aren't] generally a good thing."