New Minnesota House form limits what would-be tapers can capture

State Capitol (Wikipedia)

The sergeant-at-arms of the Minnesota House of Representatives has a new two-page form (pdf) that media must fill out if they want to video- or audio-tape House committee hearings — and it’s a doozy.

While it hasn’t been adopted by the House Rules Committee, Sergeant-at-Arms Sandy Dicke is reportedly requiring that would-be tapers sign it. Likely created in response to recent calls by online journalists to get access to the House floor, the form asks audio- and video-tapers to provide information about their news outlet, their professional affiliations, if any, and their taping schedule. Then comes the weird part. By signing the form, a journalist agrees to refrain from taping audience members, to not train their cameras on individual committee members, and to only tape actual hearings rather than activities just before or after official business, among others.

“Unfortunately, the document contains language that is far too restrictive, even for the citizens who might want to record a meeting at the Capitol, let alone the press,” said radio journalist Marty Owings, who received a copy from Dicke.

The prohibition on filming individual House members is an odd one. Is it designed to prevent campaign trackers from filming their candidate’s opponent? Or, as House Rules Committee Vice Chairman Rep. Jeff Hayden, DFL, said on a KFAI broadcast about access to the House floor for online media, is it to prevent “stalkers” who fixate on a single member? (If a committee member has a Michele Bachmann-style moment, on-site videographers can’t focus their lens on that?)

Whatever the rationale, the conditions discriminate against, well, decent videographers — those who seek to edit their footage to zoom in on specific committee members as they speak or to capture reactions from others legislators or audience members.

Further, Twin Cities Daily Planet editor Mary Turck stated, “If a group of demonstrators disrupted the committee meeting, the video reporter would be barred from filming this event. If a committee member gave a speech to visiting high school students after the hearing adjourned, this would also be off-limits.”

Owings, who runs Radio Free Nation, sees the form’s requirements as “just another attempt to prevent true transparency,” adding that the probition on focusing on a single legislator is “ridiculous.”

“I won’t sign this document as it exists and even though I don’t speak for other journalists at the Capitol, I don’t think any of them will sign it either,” he added. (In a separate e-mail, he said a meeting has been called on the topic at 2 p.m. today in Room 118 at the Capitol.)

Both Turck and Owings believe that such restrictions limit democracy, which thrives on openness and transparency. Turck writes:

What is the point of this restriction and, indeed, of the whole kerfuffle over credentials for on-line media? It’s quite simple: to protect government officials from scrutiny. And that’s precisely what the First Amendment is about. The reason for guaranteeing freedom of the press is not to establish a privileged group called journalists, but rather to make sure that the government officials are NOT able to keep the press from reporting on their activities.