PressEthic

Last week I blogged about free speech for those who American citizens who might not be big fans of the Bush administration. Today, another example of censorship has surfaced, this time for journalists.

The Associated Press reported under "Industry News" on their website that on September 29th, news organizations filed a lawsuit challenging a Florida law that bans reporters from conducting exit polls less than 100 feet from the voting stations, on the grounds that the law is unconstitutional and violates their rights to free speech.

Sue Cobb is the Secretary of State in Florida and one of the defendants in the case, representing the election supervisors.

The AP article reads,

"Cobb spokeswoman Jenny Nash said Oct. 9 the rule comes as a result of complaints from across Florida following the 2004 election cycle.

'Voters had complained about the proximity and intensity of solicitors that they found their presence intimidating and a disincentive to vote,' she said.

The AP and the five television networks — ABC, CNN, CBS, Fox News and NBC — have formed a consortium to collect exit-polling data in Florida and other states. They contend that conducting exit polls farther from voting places breaks down the statistical accuracy of their polls. Data about voter behavior becomes unreliable because voters are more likely to leave the area or blend into a crowd of nonvoters, the lawsuit states."

If the journalists are disrupting voters and their presence is a "disincentive to vote," does that make a valid argument for restricting the media access near voting sites? The news organizations contended that they would not be able to get as accurate exit-polls if they were more than 100 feet away from the voting stations. This makes sense-- after 100 feet, the likelihood of a voter leaving the area or the area being peppered with nonvoters is greater.

This issue is not restricted to Florida. In Nevada, the press has also filed a suit that polling laws violate the rights of free press. In Ohio, the press won a lawsuit of a similar nature in 2004.

Are accurate exit polls necessary to properly inform the public of the voting trends in specific areas or entire states? Because exit polls can be so innaccurate, as they were in the Bush/Gore election in 2000, it's difficult to argue that that information is worth deterring people from actually casting a vote. But if reporters are restricted from simply asking people questions as they leave the polling center, couldn't this censorship lead to other such restrictions on free speech? In order to provide information to the public, we need to have the same access to public areas that everyone else has--whether we are asking questions for a news organization or not.