Aggregator
Needing boots
Pentagon: Afghan airport attack that killed local Marine was not preventable
Reissue of Natalie Cole’s chart-topping 1991 album ‘Unforgettable…with Love’ released today
Ex-Yes keyboardist Oliver Wakeman releasing box set featuring reissue of 2001 album he made with Steve Howe
Whole block of historic commercial buildings in the city is being demolished
Henry Has Great Life With His Owner Jean Connoyer At Hoagland Stables In Godfrey
House Votes For COMPETES Act, Even With Its Problems, Almost Entirely On Party Lines
Congress is trying to overload anyone who supports an open internet with terrible bill after terrible bill. Last week, they brought out the "COMPETES Act" (renamed from Endless Frontiers which had already been renamed as "USICA" and then became COMPETES). The underlying concept of the bill actually is important -- reviving American innovation. The Senate version of the bill was mostly good and had broad bipartisan support. However, for reasons I don't understand, Nancy Pelosi allowed the bill to be loaded up with a bunch of items on the Democrats' wish list, including the ridiculously dangerous SHOP SAFE Act.
This week, of course, we've been stuck dealing with the reintroduction of the also terrible EARN IT Act in the Senate, and while all of the open internet activists were gearing up to fight that, the House went ahead and voted to approve the COMPETES Act with no changes. It was an almost strict party-line vote, ending up at 222 for and 210 against. One Democrat -- Rep. Stephanie Murphy -- voted against it, and one Republican -- Rep. Adam Kinzinger (who technically is still a Republican) voted for it.
This all seems so incredibly counterproductive by Pelosi and the Democrats. I know they want a "win" and when there's a bill that will move they feel they need to hang all sorts of gifts on it, but following the Senate's lead and coming up with a more reasonable bill that wasn't stuff full of bad ideas would have presented this as an actually interesting and useful bill, rather than turning it into a partisan thing. Politics is where policy goes to die. And, unfortunately, it may take parts of the open internet with it.
That said, the Senate version does not have the nonsense and dangerous SHOP SAFE bill attached, and the hope is that during the conference process where the House and Senate try to square up the different bills, SHOP SAFE will get left on the cutting room floor, where it belongs.
To fix social media, a Wash U student turns to her peers
Cardinals and St. Louis police partner to host blood drive
Postal service experiencing 'challenge' in deliveries due to St. Louis storm
What’s Your Favorite Date Night Spot?
St. Louis Restaurants Unite to Boost 'Very Asian' Campaign
Jenny & Amos's Love Story
Carrie & David's Love Story
Student charged with faking racist incident at SIUE
Please knock the snow mattresses off your car
Black History is American History
Elton John tops first-ever ‘Pollstar’ Artist Power Index; Billy Joel, Bryan Adams in tally’s top 10
Crackdown in the statehouse: Lawmakers edge out press access
The Iowa state senate chamber, where lawmakers have recently restricted journalist access.
Carol HighsmithIn a growing number of state legislatures across the country, journalists are facing new rules and proposed legislation that breaks with traditions of public access to legislators. These moves are a troubling development in the increasingly rocky relationship between government officials and the press that covers them, and should be rolled back and opposed wherever possible.
Two recent shifts were highlighted in this month's U.S. Press Freedom Tracker newsletter. In the Iowa and Kansas senates — both controlled by Republicans — legislators announced that journalists would no longer be allowed on the floor, and instead moved to a public gallery. In each case, lawmakers cited practical concerns and downplayed the First Amendment implications, but the effect has been to diminish the ability for journalists to effectively cover legislative action.
In Kansas, the Republican former president of the Senate Steve Morris objected to the move in an op-ed in the Kansas Reflector. "Placing restrictions on journalists in the Senate chamber suggests there is something to hide, or that leadership is taking unwarranted and unnecessary retaliation against reporters."
And last week, the Committee to Protect Journalists — a partner of the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker — spoke with a number of journalists about the effect of the change. Erin Murphy, the Des Moines bureau chief for the Cedar Rapids Gazette, said of the move, "When we work from the press benches on the Senate and House floors, we have direct access to those lawmakers throughout a legislative session. All these things that help inform our reporting and help our work so much better become infinitely more challenging when we’re in the upstairs gallery literally removed from those folks."
Sherman Smith, a reporter for the Kansas Reflector, told CPJ he took issue with the official explanation for the change. "I don’t know if they were trying to antagonize reporters, or if they just didn’t care about reporters. But we do know that the explanation that there are more of us now than ever before just isn’t true and the idea that it doesn’t matter because we can watch the video stream or the view from the balcony above just speaks to a fundamental misunderstanding of how we do our job."
Both journalists expressed concern that the shift would create a precedent that could be applied elsewhere — a fear that was vindicated this week as a Republican lawmaker in Utah introduced a resolution that would create similar restrictions in the Beehive State.
Following the script, Utah officials cite logistical challenges, but their explanations for restricting access hardly hold water. If there are practical concerns to allowing the journalists to effectively conduct their work on the floor of the state legislature, lawmakers should address those concerns. Hiding behind excuses like a shortage of chairs or undersized committee rooms is a bad look for the lawmakers claiming them, produces bad results for journalists just trying to do their jobs, and ultimately spells bad news for an informed public in these states.
stLouIST