4 ms·
I think it's quite possible, many places have laws against covering one's face (during a protest or otherwise) and if they made it illegal to go out without fac
by sudoaza 6y ago
I think it's quite possible, many places have laws against covering one's face (during a protest or otherwise) and if they made it illegal to go out without face mask protection during the covid crisis you could find yourself in this situation.
- tinus_hn 6y agoThe sentence in the title as it is implies it is illegal for a person to be both wearing and not wearing a mask at the same time. It’s a grammatical error.
- waltpad 6y agoslight nitpick It is not a grammatical error: such an error would mean that the sentence is not constructed according to the grammatical rules (of English), when clearly it is. What you probably meant is that it's a semantic error: the writer used a construction which doesn't not convey the intended meaning. As an example, substitute the impossible fact of both wearing a mask and not wearing a mask by "both walking and not looking frontward" and you would obtain a sentence following the same construction, yet doesn't seem to carry an incorrect meaning.
- ncmncm 6y agowaltpad identifies the essence of the matter. The effect of such a combination of laws would be to make it unlawful to go outside. The effect of a law as stated in the tweet would be to make enforcement impossible, as nobody would be both wearing and not wearing a mask: each perp would be doing one or the other.
- waltpad 6y agoI totally agree; there's a world of difference between laws impossible to enforce and laws impossible to break.