Anonymity is not free speech, but anonymity is absolutely required for some free speech. Consider the case of free elections, most people consider it an absolute given that these need to be anonymous.

The potential for reprisal in expressing your choice or opinion in some circumstances is very high and anonymity is sometimes the only thing that can eliminate the chill of that risk. It is in this way a free speech issue.

On the other hand, if a crime or tort was committed, well that isn't considered free.

> Consider the case of free elections, most people consider it an absolute given that these need to be anonymous.

Interestingly, this has not always been the case. Elections in the US did not use anonymous voting until nearly the 20th century. And the reason for instituting the secret ballot was apparently less due to free speech concerns, and more because of rampant corruption and bribery to buy votes.

Yes I agree it can be needed in some circumstances, but this isn't absolute or defined in the constitution or law and has to be balanced against other rights.

> On the other hand, if a crime or tort was committed, well that isn't considered free.

And this is a tort case

> ... absolute given that these need to be anonymous.

British elections aren’t anonymous - the ballot paper has a unique identifier and this is written beside the voter’s name on the polling station’s list when the ballot is issued by a polling clerk.

The list is sealed when the polling station closes, but can be opened by court order if the election result is challenged.

It’s only anonymous at the polling station - the Returning Officer (senior local government employee overseeing the election) can match the voter’s unique anonymous ID to a specific person.

Yes, and they also keep a record on WHO voted, (not how they voted except as you pointed out), as well. This information is made freely available to registered political parties.

My point was UK elections aren’t anonymous.

Ballot papers (votes) and their corresponding number lists (matching voter to ballot paper) are kept for 12 months before destruction, and together allow who voted for who to be known - however - it seems no-one is allowed to inspect this except for the purposes of prosecuting an electoral fraud, so votes are to all intents and purposes private.

Perhaps the top downvote was for pedantry (?), but there is a difference between anonymous and private. The British system could issue ballots without recording to which specific person - that would be anonymous. You’d lose the ability to ask a particular voter if their counted ballot was the one they marked (substitution fraud), but I don’t think this ever actually happens.

> but that ended when the person impersonated an FBI agent

I didn't know larping was illegal