Craddick's "Absolute Power" Decried

Yes, but let's not forget this gem either. (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Morgan Freeholder @ Thu May 31, 2007 at 03:28:44 AM CDT

Captions too fast (0.00 / 0)

The caption run too fast to completely read.

---

by: Ken22640 @ Thu May 31, 2007 at 04:02:13 AM CDT

I didn't have any (0.00 / 0)

trouble reading all of the captions. It's very quick for a reason. Most of the Speaker's decisions over the last days of the session happened too quickly, too. Playing this video again only takes a few seconds. Asking the Speaker to repeat his decisions was often a request met with a blank stare and no playback, whatsoever.

---

by: Elsbeth @ Thu May 31, 2007 at 14:39:18 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Terrific piece, Glenn (5.00 / 1)

I think Craddick himself will -- and ought to be -- one of the main issues in next spring's primaries and the fall's general elections.  He's made himself into another Tom DeLay. 

---

by: Boddhisattva @ Thu May 31, 2007 at 09:43:56 AM CDT

Yes, he is (0.00 / 0)

And no one should underestimate the saturation television coverage that accompanies the editorial reviews. High drama made for good television, and Craddick is no longer invisible.

---

by: Glenn Smith @ Thu May 31, 2007 at 10:10:50 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Don't You Love (5.00 / 2)

How great is it the newly independent Sly Turner is sitting up there with Craddick when he says his power is absolute?

What do they say, you can determine a mans true character by the character of his friends?

---

by: Matt Glazer @ Thu May 31, 2007 at 10:36:29 AM CDT

Danger! (0.00 / 0)

Folks, you are treading on VERY dangerous ground right now:

From the House website:

"Policy Statement

This video/audio programming is produced by the Texas House of Representatives. Chapter 306, Government Code, prohibits the use of video/audio materials produced by the House of Representatives in any political advertising. Violators may be subject to a civil penalty up to $5,000 for each violation. For the complete House Video/Audio Policy, click here."

---

by: The REAL Blue @ Thu May 31, 2007 at 10:39:56 AM CDT

Public distribution via access cable (5.00 / 1)

The coverage was distributed to the general public via public access television. Fair use means we can help Texans stay in touch with their government through clips from t.v.

---

by: Glenn Smith @ Thu May 31, 2007 at 10:42:39 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

. (0.00 / 0)

Are you sure a Republican AG will agree with your interpretation of the Texas Government Code?

---

by: The REAL Blue @ Thu May 31, 2007 at 10:46:05 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Absolute power to hide absolute power? (5.00 / 1)

Now, if the thugs want to try some absolute power move to hide their public claim of absolute power, I think they would be making a terrible public relations error, the kind that is difficult to recover from.

---

by: Glenn Smith @ Thu May 31, 2007 at 10:49:56 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

. (0.00 / 0)

Or,even better the Texas Ethics Commission!

§ 306.005. Use of Legislatively Produced Audio or Visual Materials in Political Advertising Prohibited

(a) A person may not use audio or video materials produced by or under the direction of the legislature or of a house, committee, or agency of the legislature in political advertising.

(b) After a formal hearing held as provided by Subchapter E, Chapter 571, the Texas Ethics Commission may impose a civil penalty against a person who violates this section. The amount of the penalty may not exceed $5,000 for each violation.

(c) Subsection (a) does not prohibit describing or quoting the verbal content of the audio or video materials in political advertising.

(d) In this section, "political advertising" has the meaning assigned by Section 251.001, Election Code.

---

by: The REAL Blue @ Thu May 31, 2007 at 10:48:00 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

. (0.00 / 0)

(16) "Political advertising" means a communication supporting or opposing a candidate for nomination or election to a public office or office of a political party, a political party, a public officer, or a measure that:

(A) in return for consideration, is published in a newspaper, magazine, or other periodical or is broadcast by radio or television; or

(B) appears:

(i) in a pamphlet, circular, flier, billboard or other sign, bumper sticker, or similar form of written communication; or

(ii) on an Internet website.

---

by: The REAL Blue @ Thu May 31, 2007 at 10:50:15 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Public doman (0.00 / 0)

Not copyrighted when it's in the public domain. If you order up a tape from the House, maybe, just maybe, they might try to apply their ridiculous rule to hide from the public. But in this case, we taped the proceedings as we saw them on public access television.

---

by: Glenn Smith @ Thu May 31, 2007 at 10:58:46 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I wondered exactly the same thing (0.00 / 0)

Glenn, this precedent you cite seems like a truck-sized loophole to the statute REAL Blue  mentions - I'm happy if you're right, but a little surprised. The public domain argument is compelling and makes sense to me, but just to have said it, as a former oppo researcher I've been told by several different campaign attorneys I couldn't use House floor footage in campaign work, though I've never seen it court-tested, FWIW.

---

by: Gritsforbreakfast @ Thu May 31, 2007 at 18:43:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Also, this is news, not advertising (5.00 / 1)

Just in case you wonder, this is a news clip we've done, not paid advertising, though I'm not sure it really matters either way.

---

by: Glenn Smith @ Thu May 31, 2007 at 10:47:56 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

. (1.00 / 1)

Look, I love the clip, I just don't want yawl to get hurt because of it.

---

by: The REAL Blue @ Thu May 31, 2007 at 10:48:59 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

So can we use it... (0.00 / 0)

as a campaign tool or not?  Does the TEC they have authority to shut it down?  Could we pay the fines (with a briefcase of cash?) and continue to run the commercial on TV?

---

by: thegipper @ Thu May 31, 2007 at 16:51:54 PM CDT

BOR is a blog - not a political advertisement (0.00 / 0)

This came up when Speaker Pelosi posted House proceedings on her blog. The GOP tried to go after her on this when she first came to office.

There doesn't appear to be any logo on the Texas House proceedings indicating copyrighted material. It is broadcast in the public domain via the Internet. Maybe the laws that are quoted in this thread were written pre-Internet and YouTube.

GOP Group Retreats after making factual error

"Our legal counsel and C-SPAN's legal counsel have each independently determined that C-SPAN video posted on the speaker's blog is in the public domain and does not violate copyright law," he said.

---

by: Elsbeth @ Thu May 31, 2007 at 17:17:13 PM CDT

. (0.00 / 0)

Elsbeth, the issue here is not that they have put the Capitol feed on You-Tube.  Rather, they have taken that product and developed it into a political commercial.  As the code I posted above states, that is unauthorized use under the Texas Government Code.  Now, is that subject to legal challenge?  Of course. But defending the right to put up the clip could end up being expensive.

I just wanted to be sure that folks knew what the code says about this usage.

---

by: The REAL Blue @ Thu May 31, 2007 at 19:58:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Who developed the video? (0.00 / 0)

Just because it's posted here, doesn't mean BOR developed it. If someone wants to challenge its legality, they would probably have to challenge YouTube. And YouTube would make that determination.

---

by: Elsbeth @ Thu May 31, 2007 at 21:10:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

. (0.00 / 0)

I would assume that, in the eyes of TEC, the responsible party would be the person who uploaded it to YouTube.

The fact it is on YouTube, by the way, provides no legal protection (and precious little privacy protection, as the guy who made the Mac/Obama video found out).  YouTube is simply a distribution network.

YouTube would certainly not have the legal standing to adjudicate the Texas Government Code.  In the event of a challenge, I would assume that, presented with a complaint citing the relevant statutes above, YouTube would simply eliminate the video from their network.

---

by: The REAL Blue @ Thu May 31, 2007 at 21:52:05 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I just don't think (0.00 / 0)

this is an issue. There are plenty of other sites that host videos. Once the video is out there in cyberspace, it's virtually impossible to eliminate it.

---

by: Elsbeth @ Thu May 31, 2007 at 22:29:30 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Out of pocket all day, but (5.00 / 1)

Sorry I had to leave my desk to visit my ill mom in Houston, now I'm back. I'm told the copyright, which would probably never stick in court, applies only to tapes of proceedings ordered from the House, not video distributed to the public via access television.

The catch here, of course, is that someone would have to literally tape 5 months of House sessions to get what they need without requesting tapes of the proceedings from the House.

It is laughable in any case that the House would prohibit use by the public of video they made for the public using public tax dollars. In our case here, however, the House itself made the material widely available to the general public via access television.

I'm glad to discuss these issues. They are important. But anyone who happens back here, let's get back to Craddick's claim of absolute power....

---

by: Glenn Smith @ Thu May 31, 2007 at 21:52:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]