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: 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.