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: 1) by khallow on Tuesday August 25 2015, @11:27AM
Then you blather on about how people are dumb enough that they would rather work "50-, 60-, 80-hour weeks with multiple jobs and no overtime and no vacation and no sick leave and still get fired on the slightest whim". Do you really believe that people would even slightly want to do that? I don't buy it. And given that the discussion was originally about the 40 hour work week, what does that have to do with people learning that lots of work can be no fun?
Some of my rebuttals are obvious and some are just pointing out that a portion of your original arguments made no sense. Yet I should look in the mirror why? I'm not the one arguing that people need to learn that working 80 hours a week is bad.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 25 2015, @06:20PM
Here is your problem. I recognize that it will fall on 100% deaf ears, but I am drunk so I will write it anyway.
Your focus on libertarian theories is incredibly narrow. You are blinded to the realities of the world by your focus on your simplistic theory of human nature. Maybe in a perfect theoretical world with no transactional friction your theories would constitute an accurate model of human behaviour, but the real world is chaotic and human motivations and interactions are 1000x more complicated than your trivializations.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday August 25 2015, @07:43PM
Further, I note in these sorts of discussions, an appeal to complexity is usually just a brazen fallacy to support what the poster wants to do, no matter the facts. If you have a better model, then feel free to share it. If you're just going to observe that full human interaction is complex, I have no use for it. That doesn't tell me whether someone is going to make a new, successful soft drink company or pull over a vending machine while trying to get that free Pepsi. We don't have to understand the full complexity in order to observe and discuss outcomes.