Earlier today the Texas Tribune published a story claiming Senator Van Taylor (Plano) wrote a letter to House members urging them to “pass the bill” pertaining to ethics reform, a key campaign issue of Governor Greg Abbott. Despite the fact this story was written AFTER 46 Republican members of the Texas House voted to criminalize and fine the First Amendment practice of citizen reporting inside the Capitol, the Texas Tribune ran the story omitting key details about C.S.S.B. 19 that provide a mechanism for elected officials to shield themselves from the scrutiny of legitimate issues of public debate taking place inside the Capitol building.
And that surprises you? Of course not.
Let’s analyze what the sycophantic Texas Tribune failed to disclose in the May 30th article starting with the bill number.
Nope, no mention of the bill number in the May 30th article linked above.
How about a link to the bill analysis for the Committee Report (substituted)?
Nope, they don’t want to publicize THAT in the story.
Here’s the damning sections of C.S.S.B. 19:
Records of Certain Oral Communications
“C.S.S.B. 19 amends the Government Code to extend the application of statutory provisions relating to certain records and communications collected and maintained by members of the legislature and the lieutenant governor to oral communications to members of the legislature and the lieutenant governor.
The bill establishes that, for the purposes of ensuring the right of the citizens of Texas to petition state government as guaranteed by the Texas Constitution and of protecting the confidentiality of communications of citizens with a member of the legislature or the lieutenant governor, a person has a justified expectation that the person’s oral communication with a member of the legislature or the lieutenant governor while in the State Capitol is not subject to interception.
The bill establishes that a person whose oral communication with a member of the legislature or the lieutenant governor consists of testimony at a public meeting of a legislative committee or agency does not have a justified expectation that the communication is not subject to interception.
The bill defines “intercept” as the aural acquisition of the contents of a communication through the use of an electronic, mechanical, or other device that is made without the consent of all parties to the communication but specifies that the term does not include the ordinary use of a telephone or telegraph instrument or facility or telephone or telegraph equipment; a hearing aid designed to correct subnormal hearing to not better than normal; a radio, television, or other wireless receiver; or a cable system that relays a public wireless broadcast from a common antenna to a receiver.”
C.S.S.B. 19 grants to a party to a protected oral communication with a member of the legislature or the lieutenant governor while in the state capitol a civil cause of action against a person who, intercepts, attempts to intercept, or employs or obtains another to intercept or attempt to intercept the communication or uses or divulges information that the person knows or reasonably should know was obtained by interception of the communication.
The bill defines “protected oral communication” as an oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that the communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying that expectation and specifies that the term does not include an electronic communication.
The bill’s provisions relating to the interception of oral communications made in the state capitol do not apply to a party to an oral communication if an interception or attempted interception of the communication is authorized by certain federal law or if the party has an affirmative defense to prosecution under certain Penal Code provisions relating to the unlawful interception, use, or disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications, other than an affirmative defense established in that Penal Code provision for a person not acting under color of law who intercepts a wire, oral, or electronic communication under certain conditions as specified in that affirmative defense.
The bill prescribes the relief to which a person who establishes such a cause of action is entitled and establishes that Civil Practice and Remedies Code provisions relating to actions involving the exercise of certain constitutional rights do not apply to a legal action authorized by the bill’s provisions relating to interception of oral communications made in the state capitol.
As Doug Giles wrote in his blog post, “Civil penalties for video reporting could now include $10,000 fines per occurrence.”
Rep. Matt Schaeffer was right in his proposal to remove Article 5 and Section 7.05 and Rep. Jonathan Stickland was spot on point in emphasizing the bill would allow more elected officials to hide from public scrutiny.
I wrote about this four weeks ago–we cannot allow local media to escape accountability for their Failure To Report Germaine Facts and take their reporting as gospel when the facts are so readily available and accessible
So I’m publicizing (thanks to Doug Giles) what the Texas Tribune will not–the names of the Fort Bend – Harris – Brazoria County area Republicans who voted to fine the exercise of First Amendment speech for the purpose of First Amendment citizen journalist recording and reporting inside the Capitol.
- Rick Miller (HD 26) @Vote4Rick, rick4tx26@gmail.com
- Sarah Davis (HD 134) @SarahforHD134, sdavisatty@aol.com
- Patricia Harless (HD 126) @PatriciaHarless, phar77379@aol.com
- Dan Huberty (HD 127) @DanHuberty, dan@com
- Jim Murphy (HD 133) @JimMurphy133, jim@com
- Debbie Riddle (HD 150) @debbieriddle
- Ed Thompson (HD 29) @RepEdThompson, ed@com
- Wayne Faircloth (HD 23) @WayneFaircloth
- Gary Elkins (HD 135) gary@garyelkins.com
*Supporters of these elected officials are trying to put forth the “victimhood” or “wounded lamb syndrome” narrative; that somehow they work so hard for us and further scrutiny of their actions isn’t fair.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsYJyVEUaC4
Don’t let them and their ilk at the Texas Tribune get away with it.