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.
- Trent Ashby (HD 57) @TrentAshbyTX, tashby@
communitytitle-tx.com - Jimmy Don Aycock (HD 54) @Aycockjda, jim@
jimarenterprises.com - Cindy Burkett (HD 113) @CindyBurkett_TX, cindy.
burkett@hotmail.com - DeWayne Burns (HD 58) @BurnsForTexas
- Angie Chen Button (HD 112) @AngieChenButton
- Giovanni Capriglione (HD 98) @VoteGiovanni, gio.cap@
gmail.com - Travis Clardy (HD 11) @TravisForTexas
- Byron Cook (HD 8) byron@byroncook.com
- Tony Dale (HD 136) @TonyDaleTX
- Drew Darby (HD 72) @drewdarby4Tx, drew@
suretytitleco.com - Sarah Davis (HD 134) @SarahforHD134, sdavisatt
y@aol.com - Gary Elkins (HD 135) gary@garyelkins.com
- Wayne Faircloth (HD 23) @WayneFaircloth
- Dr. Marsha Farney (HD 20) @DrMarshaFarney, marsha@
marshafarney.com - John Frullo (HD 84) @FrulloForTexas, john@
johnfrullo.com - Rick Galindo (HD 117) @GalindoForRep
- Charlie Geren (HD 99) @charliegeren
- Larry Gonzales (HD 52) @larrygonzales52, larry@
larrygonzales.com - Patricia Harless (HD 126) @PatriciaHarless, phar773
79@aol.com - Dan Huberty (HD 127) @DanHuberty, dan@
danhuberty.com - Todd Hunter (HD 32) @toddahunter, @
Dist32StateRep, todd@ hunterhandel.com - Kyle Kacal (HD 12) @KyleKacal, kyle@tonkaway.
com - Jim Keffer (HD 60) @RepJimKeffer, lbkeffer@
sbcglobal.net - Ken King (HD 88) @KingForTexas, ken@
kingwell.com - Linda Koop (HD 102) @LindaKoopHD102
- John Kuempel (HD 44) JLKcampaign@hotmail.com
- Lyle Larson (HD 122) @RepLyleLarson, lyle@
lylelarson.org - Jose Manuel Lozano (HD 43) @RepJMLozano, texasreploza
no@gmail.com - Morgan Meyer (HD 108) @MorganMeyerTX, morgan@
morganmeyerfortexas.com - Doug Miller (HD 73) @DougMiller73, doug@
miller-miller.com - Rick Miller (HD 26) @Vote4Rick, rick4tx26@
gmail.com - Jim Murphy (HD 133) @JimMurphy133, jim@
votejimmurphy.com - John Otto (HD 18) @RepJohnOtto, j-otto@
comcast.net - Tan Parker (HD 63) @tparker63, tanparker@rr.
tx.com - Larry Philips (HD 62) shmdad@yahoo.com
- Four Price (HD 87) @FourPriceTX
- John Raney (HD 14) @RaneyForTexas, txag@txag.
com - Debbie Riddle (HD 150) @debbieriddle
- Dr. J.D. Sheffield (HD 59) @dr_sheffield, jsheffield@
cmhos.org - Ron Simmons (HD 65) @RonSimmonsTexas, rsimmons
@raa.com - Wayne Smith (HD 128) waynesmith128@comcast.net
- Ed Thompson (HD 29) @RepEdThompson, ed@
edthompson29.com - Gary VanDeaver (HD 1) @GaryVanDeaver
- Jason Villalba (HD 114) @JasonVillalba, jvillalba
@sbcglobal.net - Paul Workman (HD 47) @PaulWorkman, paulworkman@
austin.rr.com - 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.
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.
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
