I'd be pleased to respond.
Not to make light of the comparison to artists, but there's a fundamental difference between artists and their artwork and what we're talking about here, in at least one respect. That is, art is property of another kind. It's property. The artist's interest in his or her art is as a matter of property; you can't distort it. But you can still say it's lousy art. You can still say unkind things about the artwork. You can't say defamatory things about the artist because it has nothing to do with his artwork, but you can say unkind things about the art, in terms of criticism. But you just can't change or distort it. That's a property interest.
In the same way, the House has a property interest in this debate, and you can't change or distort the recordings of the proceeding. But the other question, quite apart from that, is to what extent can that material be used for political debate, for showing the world how this speech was nonsense, or whatever the view is of the person who's choosing to show it out? That's a different issue.