SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A federal judge recently ruled that banning photos of ballots was unconstitutional:
The ruling clears the way for New Hampshire voters to post their ballot selfies during the first-in-the-nation presidential primaries early next year.
New Hampshire's ban went into effect September 2014 and made it illegal for anyone to post a photo of a marked ballot and share it on social media. The violation was punishable by a fine of up to $1,000.
[...] Mashable's Juana Summers adds that the judge found "there was no evidence that vote-buying or voter coercion were current problems in New Hampshire."
This seems like an interesting legal question, with good arguments on both sides:
- For the ban: If a photograph of a marked ballot is taken from the voting booth, then the voter can verify their vote with an interested third party, including those that would seek to purchase or coerce their vote.
- Against the ban: Such a photograph is protected free speech, and thus cannot be legally banned.
What do Soylentils think about this?
(Score: 3, Disagree) by Fluffeh on Tuesday August 25 2015, @01:40AM
Against the ban: Such a photograph is protected free speech, and thus cannot be legally banned.
Given that even as a non-United States of American, I understand that the whole "Free Speech" that the US has means you can SAY it, but it DOES NOT mean that there aren't consequences to doing it. In this case, the concept of Free Speech means no-one can STOP you doing it, but it certainly doesn't mean that they can't punish you for doing it later.
Consider libel laws or something similar. Can you say it? Yes. Is it protected by "Free Speech" yes. Can you get taken to court over it later? Yup.
While I wouldn't have really considered that a selfie could be used to "prove" that someone voted the way another wanted them to vote, I guess it's possible. I don't really have a problem with selfies being banned inside a polling booth with the contents of the ballot identifiable. Amusingly the $1k fine just means that if you REALLY want to show off who you voted for, you better be prepared for the cost of doing so.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 25 2015, @02:17AM
Actually you are confused.
Freedom of speech, in the USA, means freedom from consequences from the government for your speech.
Punishment for libel isn't about not being free from consequences, its about libel being an issue for the civil courts rather than criminal courts. It is impossible to libel the government, only other citizens (and corporations are citizens too).
There is a line as to what is considered libel and that line is influenced by american society's beliefs about freedom of expression, but that's not a constitutional issue.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 25 2015, @07:13PM
Guess what they'll actually give you when you ask for smaller Gov? They'll outsource stuff to Corporations. It's not like they'll actually chop stuff in most cases.
It'll be easier for small Gov + Big Corporations to screw you.
Freedom of speech does not apply on Facebook. Right to bear arms does not apply in Disneyland.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday August 25 2015, @11:22AM
Given that even as a non-United States of American, I understand that the whole "Free Speech" that the US has means you can SAY it, but it DOES NOT mean that there aren't consequences to doing it.
That's complete nonsense and would make the concept of freedom of speech utterly useless. Freedom of speech means that you can speak and the government can't punish you for your speech. If what you say were true, North Koreans would have just as much free speech as Americans do, as while they might be murdered or imprisoned for criticizing the government, they are simply being punished for the "consequences" of their speech.
Please put this nonsense to rest. This isn't the purpose of freedom of speech in the constitution at all, which *is* to protect you from the government. If the government can punish you for your speech or its "consequences", then you don't have freedom of speech in that instance according to the government. Period.
The first amendment clearly forbids the government from banning such pictures, so if the courts are not corrupt, they will side with the constitution.