Slashdot Mirror
Lawsuit Seeks To Block New York Ban On 'Ballot Selfies' (msnbc.com)
You have have the right to vote, but should you have the right to take a selfie at a ballot? According to ABC News, a federal lawsuit is challenging a New York state law that makes it a misdemeanor to show a marked election ballot to others: The lawsuit filed late Wednesday in Manhattan federal court seeks to have the law banning so-called "ballot selfies" declared unconstitutional. The lawsuit says publishing a voted ballot on social media can be a powerful form of political expression. It says that someone claiming they voted without photographic proof reduces the credibility of the individual. Attorney Leo Glickman, who filed the suit on behalf of three voters, says the lawsuit is consistent with claims made in Michigan, Indiana and New Hampshire, where similar laws have been struck down. In a separate report, Mother Jones' Kevin Drum explained the reasoning behind why a law against "ballot selfies" would exist in the first place: Just for the record, then, there is a reason for selfie bans in voting booths: it prevents vote buying. After all, the only way it makes sense to pay people for their votes is if you have proof that they voted the way you told them to. Back in the day that was no problem, but ever since secret ballots became the norm vote buying has died out. Selfies change all that. If I give you ten bucks to vote for my favorite candidate for mayor, I can withhold payment until you show me a selfie proving that you voted for my guy.
Photos and free speech go hand in hand. You're clearly too fucking stupid to read what I linked to. Cases on this have already been decided. They were unconstitutional based on 1st amendment protections. Yes photos of naked children are not protected. Political speech, aka ballot selfies, are.
"If First Amendment protections are to enjoy enduring relevance in the 21st century, they must apply with full force to speech conducted online and through social media platforms, especially where this speech is political in nature."
"On August 11, 2015, a federal judge struck down the law, ruling that the law “deprives voters of one of their most powerful means of letting the world know how they voted.” For example, this form of speech can convey a sense of pride and excitement from an 18-year-old, newly minted voter who is enthusiastic about voting in her first presidential selection. It can convey, as it did with Andrew, the message of political protest against one’s choices for public office. The court understood that these messages lose their salience without the photograph of the marked ballot."
It appears "retarded" to me because it is and because I do understand what I read. If you really want to point at Apples to Oranges regarding Europe as a continent vs US as a country, let gloss over that I can generalize with "Europe" because not a single country on that continent has free speech protections as strong as the US' protections. Go back to your troll cave. Nothing you said even remotely resembles anything but subpar intelligence. You're in the wrong decile of the bell curve my friend.