Josh Fox (Gasland) led away in handcuffs from hearing

[Earth_First]

Oscar-nominated documentary filmmaker Josh Fox was arrested Wednesday morning after attempting to film a House Science Committee hearing on hydraulic fracturing.

Fox was led out in handcuffs by the Capitol police shortly after 10 a.m., before the hearing could be gaveled into order. The "Gasland" director was attempting to film the hearing looking into EPA's investigation of potential water contamination from natural gas drilling in Pavillion, Wyo.

The committee recessed after Rep. Brad Miller (D-N.C.) called a motion to suspend the committee rules and allow for Fox and the ABC crew to film the hearing.

Before Miller's motion, subcommittee chairman Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.) noted that the hearing is being webcast and that anyone filming the hearing would need the appropriate press credentials.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72298.html#ixzz1l9jM1MbH



GASLAND's Josh Fox, arrested at the Congressional Hearing on fracking/drilling contamination of Pavillion, WY groundwater - and EPA's investigation of it.

[Earth_First]

1. So much for transparency in government in allowing citizen journalists/documentarians to participate

You must be "properly credentialed" doublespeak for: "You will report what we decide you report..."

So disappointing...

[sabrina 1]

2. And this kind of behavior is what is really dishonoring the flag. Silence the press

could it be any more anti-Constitutional, and is there any doubt why the US has fallen to #47 on the World's Free Press list?

[Earth_First]

6. +1

I couldn't agree any more...

[piratefish08]

3. don't burn a flag in the land of the free!

[Ohio Joe]

4. I guess I don't understand why he did this...

There was a post here yesterday wanting people to sign so he could go in and film because they had said he could not so he knew this would be the result... OK, sometimes you need to get arrested to make a point, I'm there but... It was being web-cast and that is easily captured so what point is he trying to make? First Amendment.... I'm not sure I see a case for that. Anyone better versed then I (because I'm not) in Constitutional law see it?

[Scuba]

7. To a suspicious person like me, having an independent journalist is better...

... than watching over the House's webcast, which could be rigged.


It's a public hearing. We allegedly have a free press. Why bar anyone?

[Ohio Joe]

10. Thats great... I could buy wanting that

I am still not sure that fits into First Amendment. As I'm seeing it (and perhaps I'm wrong) he was not barred, he was barred from filming it. He could have sat in, take notes and compared what he saw to the web-cast after.

I guess I'm just not seeing what point he is trying to make, usualy when people get arrested on purpose like this it is to make a point. If it were 'We don't trust the web-cast', why not say that... First Amendment does not seem to fit to me.

[Earth_First]

8. I get the First Amendment issue, and I understand the civil disobiendence tactic...

We're on the same page there.

The problem with this, is that after the fact, the comittee recessed to discuss media coverage and allowed the 'credentialed' press access.

It's not as though Mr. Fox is just some guy off the street with high-end digital recording equipment looking to make a stir.

This does not get any more Constitutional that THAT!

Allowing access to one group, yet not another?

This is a credited, Oscar-nominated documentary film-maker...

The issue here is they do not have the ability to censor the end result of his presence this morning.

[Ohio Joe]

11. OK, I guess I can see that but it begs the question...

Why did he not get the credentials? Was he denied... Did not do it in time... I guess there could be a lot of reasons why but I also think it is important to know what it is before I can get outraged about it.

I am not sure I agree it is censorship in this case (I could be convinced otherwise, I'm on the fence here) since there is a web-cast and others filming it... I'm not convinced of the case for that.

[joeybee12]

12. Who ahs control over the camera for the web cast...who would it show...

Any film maker would want control...get reactions from the participants...can't get that from a stationery camera.

[Ohio Joe]

13. I can see that but as I said above...

Why did he not get credentials so he could do it? Was he mot allowed or fail to do it in some way? The level of outrage depends greatly on which it is.

[Earth_First]

17. I have emailed their media request contact hoping to address this issue...

It's either not being reported on in enough depth, or omitted entirely.

I will post my findings...

[Ohio Joe]

18. Cool

I appreciate you doing that! I'll keep an eye out.

[Earth_First]

20. Not from Fox, but Jerry Nadler...

Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) told HuffPost, “I have served in the House of Representatives since 1992, and I had the privilege of chairing the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties. In all that time, I cannot recall a chair of any committee or subcommittee having ever ordered the removal of a person who was filming a committee proceeding and not being disruptive, whether or not that person was accredited. It is a matter of routine that all sorts of people photograph and record our proceedings. Most of them are not accredited. I cannot recall anyone questioning their right to be there."

[Ohio Joe]

21. This definitly makes a case for breach of First Amendment IMO

Thank you for the update, appreciated.

I expect charges will be dropped... Not that it matters much, the damage is done and he will beat them even if they are not dropped. I hope he gets a lawyer and goes after the fuckers.

[abelenkpe]

15. House Republicans also denied an ABC news crew

that had the proper credentials. So would it have mattered if he did get the proper credentials? Doesn't seem likely.

[Ohio Joe]

16. I'm seeing that the credentialed were allowed in later

At least... That is what is being stated above but.... Perhaps not, though if he had gotten them and was then denied, I could see the case for First Amendment and give this some outrage.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

5. That is disgusting.

I am appalled at the actions against this man.

[B Calm]

14. Disgusting REPUBLICANS!

[Bozita]

9. "They hate us for our freedoms." - George W. Bush

[Earth_First]

19. kick! n/t