HERE THEY ARE: The 46 Republicans That Voted to Repeal the First Amendment #GOPFascism

When Texas legislators found out about the undercover video footage about to be released by Joseph Basel and Hannah Giles with the American Phoenix Foundation, they had to quickly push through legislation, SB 19, which would criminalize this first amendment practice. With over 800 hours of footage that have yet to be released, the following Texas Republicans are those who voted to pass SB 19.

Scroll down to see the details on SB 19.

AUSTIN – The Texas Legislature Wednesday pushed through controversial legislation which repeals portions of the First Amendment, effectively ending citizen journalism in the Capitol. The new law is an attempt for legislators to shield themselves from scrutiny even in public areas of the Capitol building.

In a stunning show of bipartisanship, the Texas House rushed through SB 19 which includes provisions which some say severely curtail the first amendment rights of the press. Civil penalties for video reporting could now include $10,000 fines per occurrence.

Here are the Texas State House Republicans that voted to repeal the First Amendment in Texas. Let them know what you think of the Constitution.

Screen Shot 2015-05-28 at 6.41.52 PM

  1. Trent Ashby (HD 57) @TrentAshbyTXtashby@communitytitle-tx.com
  2. Jimmy Don Aycock (HD 54) @Aycockjdajim@jimarenterprises.com
  3. Cindy Burkett (HD 113) @CindyBurkett_TXcindy.burkett@hotmail.com
  4. DeWayne Burns (HD 58) @BurnsForTexas
  5. Angie Chen Button (HD 112) @AngieChenButton
  6. Giovanni Capriglione (HD 98) @VoteGiovannigio.cap@gmail.com
  7. Travis Clardy (HD 11) @TravisForTexas
  8. Byron Cook (HD 8) byron@byroncook.com
  9. Tony Dale (HD 136) @TonyDaleTX
  10. Drew Darby (HD 72) @drewdarby4Txdrew@suretytitleco.com
  11. Sarah Davis (HD 134) @SarahforHD134sdavisatty@aol.com
  12. Gary Elkins (HD 135) gary@garyelkins.com
  13. Wayne Faircloth (HD 23) @WayneFaircloth
  14. Dr. Marsha Farney (HD 20) @DrMarshaFarneymarsha@marshafarney.com
  15. John Frullo (HD 84) @FrulloForTexasjohn@johnfrullo.com
  16. Rick Galindo (HD 117) @GalindoForRep
  17. Charlie Geren (HD 99) @charliegeren
  18. Larry Gonzales (HD 52) @larrygonzales52larry@larrygonzales.com
  19. Patricia Harless (HD 126) @PatriciaHarlessphar77379@aol.com
  20. Dan Huberty (HD 127) @DanHubertydan@danhuberty.com
  21. Todd Hunter (HD 32) @toddahunter@Dist32StateReptodd@hunterhandel.com
  22. Kyle Kacal (HD 12) @KyleKacalkyle@tonkaway.com
  23. Jim Keffer (HD 60) @RepJimKefferlbkeffer@sbcglobal.net
  24. Ken King (HD 88) @KingForTexasken@kingwell.com
  25. Linda Koop (HD 102) @LindaKoopHD102
  26. John Kuempel (HD 44) JLKcampaign@hotmail.com
  27. Lyle Larson (HD 122) @RepLyleLarsonlyle@lylelarson.org
  28. Jose Manuel Lozano (HD 43) @RepJMLozanotexasreplozano@gmail.com
  29. Morgan Meyer (HD 108) @MorganMeyerTXmorgan@morganmeyerfortexas.com
  30. Doug Miller (HD 73) @DougMiller73doug@miller-miller.com
  31. Rick Miller (HD 26) @Vote4Rickrick4tx26@gmail.com
  32. Jim Murphy (HD 133) @JimMurphy133jim@votejimmurphy.com
  33. John Otto (HD 18) @RepJohnOttoj-otto@comcast.net
  34. Tan Parker (HD 63) @tparker63tanparker@rr.tx.com
  35. Larry Philips (HD 62) shmdad@yahoo.com
  36. Four Price (HD 87) @FourPriceTX
  37. John Raney (HD 14) @RaneyForTexastxag@txag.com
  38. Debbie Riddle (HD 150) @debbieriddle
  39. Dr. J.D. Sheffield (HD 59) @dr_sheffieldjsheffield@cmhos.org
  40. Ron Simmons (HD 65) @RonSimmonsTexasrsimmons@raa.com
  41. Wayne Smith (HD 128) waynesmith128@comcast.net
  42. Ed Thompson (HD 29) @RepEdThompsoned@edthompson29.com
  43. Gary VanDeaver (HD 1) @GaryVanDeaver
  44. Jason Villalba (HD 114) @JasonVillalbajvillalba@sbcglobal.net
  45. Paul Workman (HD 47) @PaulWorkmanpaulworkman@austin.rr.com
  46. John Wray (HD 10) @wrayfortexas10

UPDATE: This is the proposal from Rep. Matt Schaefer to remove these items from the bill SB19. Here is the official request to amend the bill.

Screen-Shot-2015-05-28-at-10.46.34-PM-630x275

The following is the Roll Call on this motion to remove portions of SB19. By removing Article 5, and Article 7.05, it would ensure there would be no suppression of 1st amendment rights given explicitly to the press. Please note how many Republicans voted when given the chance to remove Article 5 and article 7.05. Nay means they chose not to remove the article (5)(7.05) that blatantly violates the 1st Amendment and heavily penalizes the press for doing their job i.e. keeping the representatives accountable to the people they serve. Please see Article 5 and 7.05. Two party consent laws are made for those who have something to hide and have no place in the people of Texas’ House.

Screen Shot 2015-05-28 at 9.45.10 PM

 

The following is the literature of the bill in question:

ARTICLE 5. RECORDS OF CERTAIN ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
       SECTION 5.01.  Section 306.002, Government Code, is amended
to read as follows:
       Sec. 306.002.  APPLICATION. This chapter applies to:
             (1)  records and communications collected and
maintained by members of the legislature and the lieutenant
governor on June 12, 1985, as well as to records made and
communications received by those officials on or after that date
and
             (2)  oral communications to members of the legislature 
and the lieutenant governor.
       SECTION 5.02.  Chapter 306, Government Code, is amended by
adding Section 306.0041 to read as follows:
       Sec. 306.0041.  INTERCEPTION OF ORAL COMMUNICATIONS MADE IN 
THE CAPITOL. (a) In this chapter:
             (1)  “Intercept” means 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 does not include the ordinary use 
of:
                   (A)  a telephone or telegraph instrument or 
facility or telephone or telegraph equipment;
                   (B)  a hearing aid designed to correct subnormal 
hearing to not better than normal;
                   (C)  a radio, television, or other wireless 
receiver; or
                   (D)  a cable system that relays a public wireless 
broadcast from a common antenna to a receiver.
             (2)  “Protected oral communication” means an oral 
communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that 
the communication is not subject to interception under 
circumstances justifying that expectation. The term does not 
include an electronic communication.
       (b)  To ensure the right of the citizens of this state to 
petition state government, as guaranteed by Article I, Section 27, 
Texas Constitution, by 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. 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.
       (c)  A party to a protected oral communication with a member 
of the legislature or the lieutenant governor while in the state 
capitol has a civil cause of action against a person who:
             (1)  intercepts, attempts to intercept, or employs or 
obtains another to intercept or attempt to intercept the 
communication; or
             (2)  uses or divulges information that the person knows 
or reasonably should know was obtained by interception of the 
communication.
       (d)  This section does not apply to a party to an oral 
communication if an interception or attempted interception of the 
communication is authorized by 18 U.S.C. Section 2516, or if the 
party has an affirmative defense to prosecution under Section 
16.02, Penal Code, other than Subsection (c)(4) of that section.
       (e)  A person who establishes a cause of action under this 
section is entitled to:
             (1)  an injunction prohibiting a further interception, 
attempted interception, or divulgence or use of information 
obtained by an interception;
             (2)  statutory damages of $10,000 for each occurrence;
             (3)  all actual damages in excess of $10,000;
             (4)  punitive damages in an amount determined by the 
court or jury; and
             (5)  reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.
       (f)  Chapter 27, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, does not 
apply to a legal action authorized by this section.
    ———————————————————————————————————————-

Matt Schaefer proposed an amendment to the language, because he actually believes in the 1st amendment of the US Constitution:

Byron Cook felt differently. He felt that the bill was good as is and complied with the idea of repealing the 1st amendment. Him and his compadres voted NAY on Schaefer’s amendment.

SEE ALSO: TEXAS LEGISLATURE REPEALS FIRST AMENDMENT: Afraid of Undercover Videos

Like Clash? Like Clash.

Leave a Comment

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.