+
upworthy
More

Why we should all be mad that Congress banned members from video streaming.

Banning members from streaming video to social media poses a big challenge to transparency.

On Tuesday, Jan. 3, members of the 115th Congress were sworn into office.

It was kind of like a first day of school: There was a lot of light chat among members and their families and a somewhat relaxed atmosphere. That didn't stop Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-WI) from getting a bit of business done, however.

As is first-day tradition, the House of Representatives voted on the set of rules that will guide them for the next two years.


Photo by Jim Watson/AFP/Getty Images.

Tucked away in the House rules was a provision aimed at preventing lawmakers from streaming video from the floor to social media.

Violators would be charged a fine for streaming. At first glance, it seems to make sense in a sort of "no phones at the kitchen table" kind of way. After all, if C-SPAN cameras are rolling and streaming to the world, why would any individual member of the House need to start their own live broadcast?

The answer: Sometimes those C-SPAN cameras aren't rolling — and for a very troubling reason.

In June 2016, Democrats in the House took to the floor in an act of protest after Ryan decided against bringing a gun safety bill up for a full vote.

In the wake of the Pulse nightclub shooting in Orlando, Democrats made a push for gun safety reform. In the Senate, Chris Murphy (D-CT) led a 17-hour filibuster aimed at getting Republican leadership to agree to put two gun control amendments up for an up-or-down vote. (He succeeded in getting the vote, though both amendments were shot down days later.)

In the House, Democrats, led by civil rights hero Rep. John Lewis, staged a sit-in after Republicans made the decision not to bring similar gun control legislation up for a floor vote.

The real controversy began when Ryan ordered the C-SPAN video feed of the House floor turned off. The Democrats were free to protest, but would no longer have an audience.

It turns out that the cameras that show the action on the House floor aren't owned or controlled by C-SPAN, but rather, by Congress itself. Given that Ryan and his Republican colleagues finished up for the day and the cameras are only required to be "on when the House is in session" (as per the rules voted on by the 114th Congress), Ryan did have every right to cut the TV feed.

In response, some members of the protest began to broadcast the sit-in from their phones. It was an innovative approach to a complicated problem. Using Periscope and Facebook Live, the legislators provided insight to constituents. C-SPAN even picked up the feeds, sharing them on their TV and social channels.

The newly proposed rules, however, aim to prevent members of Congress from repeating such a broadcast, something Ryan may want to reconsider.

In 2008, the very same thing happened — except it was the Republicans holding a protest with Democratic leadership giving them the cold shoulder. On Aug. 1, 2008, then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and her Democratic colleagues voted to adjourn. The chamber's lights were turned off, the cameras were cut, and microphones were shut off, making some Republicans pretty upset.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi and other House Democrats speak before the 2016 sit-in. Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images.

For hours, members of the GOP held the floor in protest. They had hoped Pelosi would bring a bill related to off-shore drilling up for a vote. To their dissatisfaction, she didn't, and so the Republicans traded off impromptu speeches from the floor about the benefits of drilling, arguing that it would lower gas prices and having the type of discussion the House of Representatives was meant to have.

In 2008, the ability to broadcast live video from a cell phone wasn't as easy as pulling up an app, the way it was during last year's protest. Regardless, it was wrong of Democrats to use their majority to silence Republicans in 2008, just as it was wrong for Republicans to do so to Democrats in 2016.

If we want to have robust, transparent debate between parties, we need to make sure all voices are heard, regardless of which party sits in the majority.

It sets a dangerous precedent for members of Congress to be able to create a media blackout anytime one of their colleagues makes an argument they don't like. If Ryan wants to fine members of the House for streaming from the floor, he should allow C-SPAN to install their own independently-run cameras. Knowledge and transparency should not be subject to partisanship.

Being able to see what happens on the floor of the House and the Senate is one of the most wonderful things to come out of technological advancement. While not every word spoken will be beautiful or insightful — for example, there's the time Ted Cruz read "Green Eggs and Ham" on the Senate floor — it's all part of our history.

Constituents have a right to know when the people they put in office are going to great lengths to represent the values they voted for — and when their opponents are trying to block them from doing so. Being able to see when our representatives are arguing on our behalf, staying up all night to protest, and broadcasting from the floor shows citizens that their voices are being heard.

The rules, as they were just voted on, take that away from us, and it's a major blow to democracy and transparency.

Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images.

The gaze of the approving Boomer.

Over the past few years, Baby Boomers (1946 to 1964) have been getting a lot of grief from the generations that came after them, Gen X (1965 to 1980), Millenials (1981 to 1996), and now, Gen Z (1997 to 2012). Their grievances include environmental destruction, wealth hoarding, political polarization, and being judgemental when they don’t understand how hard it is for younger people to make it in America these days.

Every Baby Boomer is different, so it's wrong to paint them all with a broad brush. But it’s undeniable that each generation shares common values, and some are bound to come into conflict.

However, life in 2023 isn’t without its annoyances. Many that came about after the technological revolution put a phone in everyone’s hands and brought a whole new host of problems. Add the younger generations' hands-on approach to child rearing and penchant for outrage, and a lot of moden life has become insufferanble.

Keep ReadingShow less

Klein Kwagga understood the assignment at his sister's concert.

Some kids are too shy to ever want to get on a stage, some will spend most of a performance staring awkwardly at their shoes, and some kids love the opportunity to show off what they've practiced in front of an audience.

And then there are the kids were simply born for the spotlight. You know them when you see them.

When Dirkco Jansen van Nieuwenhuizen hopped on stage with all of the other brothers and sisters of the dance students at René’s Art of Dance in South Africa, no one expected a viral sensation. According to Capetown Etc, it was the school's year-end concert, and siblings were invited to come up and dance to Bernice West’s Lyfie—a popular song in Afrikaans. And Dirkco, who goes by Klein Kwagga, took the assignment and ran with it.

Keep ReadingShow less
True

After over a thousand years of peaceful relations, European semi-superpowers Sweden and Switzerland may finally address a lingering issue between the two nations. But the problem isn’t either country’s fault. The point is that the rest of the world can’t tell them apart. They simply don’t know their kroppkakor (Swedish potato dumpling) from their birchermüesli (a Swiss breakfast dish).

This confusion on the European continent has played out in countless ways.

Swedish people who move to the United States often complain of being introduced as Swiss. The New York Stock Exchange has fallen victim to the confusion, and a French hockey team once greeted their Swiss opponents, SC Bern, by playing the Swedish National Anthem and raising the Swedish flag.

Skämtar du med mig? (“Are you kidding me?” in Swedish)

Keep ReadingShow less
Photo by Kelly Sikkema on Unsplash

People share the most practical ways to support new parents

There's a lot of preparation that goes into having a child well before they're even born. First there are the physical changes your body makes to clear up some space for a tiny human roughly the size of a watermelon. Then there's preparing the nursery, buying lots of extremely small clothes, diapers and an expected understanding that while sleep may be your friend, you won't be getting any of it for about a year.

Lots of people give plenty of advice to help you cope in the early days but after the baby arrives, the focus shifts to solely the baby. It's obviously not a deliberate shift. Babies are just more shiny and new that the parents. But not everyone forgets about the parents once baby makes their grand entrance–some go out of their way to make sure the parents feel supported.

Upworthy asked its audience, "what was the best non-baby related gift you received as a new parent," and the answers were a masterclass on how to care for new parents.

Keep ReadingShow less
Family

A mom seeks doctor's help for postpartum depression and instead gets a visit from the cops

Too many women lose out on much needed support because of unwarranted stigma.

Canva

Postpartum depression is very common, and treatable.

Jessica Porten recently visited her doctor four months after giving birth to her daughter, Kira. She wasn't feeling quite like herself.

She had been dealing with overwhelming sadness and fits of anger, which she knew was likely stemming from a case of postpartum depression.

In a Facebook post, Porten recounts the story of that appointment.

Keep ReadingShow less
Identity

Formerly enslaved man's response to his 'master' wanting him back is a literary masterpiece

"I would rather stay here and starve — and die, if it come to that — than have my girls brought to shame by the violence and wickedness of their young masters."

A photo of Jordan Anderson.

In 1825, at the approximate age of 8, Jordan Anderson (sometimes spelled "Jordon") was sold into slavery and would live as a servant of the Anderson family for 39 years. In 1864, the Union Army camped out on the Anderson plantation and he and his wife, Amanda, were liberated. The couple eventually made it safely to Dayton, Ohio, where, in July 1865, Jordan received a letter from his former owner, Colonel P.H. Anderson. The letter kindly asked Jordan to return to work on the plantation because it had fallen into disarray during the war.

On Aug. 7, 1865, Jordan dictated his response through his new boss, Valentine Winters, and it was published in the Cincinnati Commercial. The letter, entitled "Letter from a Freedman to His Old Master," was not only hilarious, but it showed compassion, defiance, and dignity. That year, the letter would be republished in theNew York Daily Tribune and Lydia Marie Child's "The Freedman's Book."

The letter mentions a "Miss Mary" (Col. Anderson's Wife), "Martha" (Col. Anderson's daughter), Henry (most likely Col. Anderson's son), and George Carter (a local carpenter).

Dayton, Ohio,
August 7, 1865
To My Old Master, Colonel P.H. Anderson, Big Spring, Tennessee

Keep ReadingShow less