4 ms·

Seriously how can someone think that mask requirements cannot be legal given this precedent haha

colechristensen 6y ago
Because covering your junk is based on judeo-christian morals which are reflected in our law in ways that certain “obscene” things have historically fallen outside of free expression rights... those are going away and you won’t successfully argue that not wearing a mask is obscene.
- pmoriarty 6y ago
  No one actually causes the death of someone else by not covering up an "obscene" part of their body. And, as in the case of Typhoid Mary, people have been deprived of their liberty for being a threat to public health. So I wouldn't be too sure about the courts siding with the anti-maskers.
  - colechristensen 6y ago
    Yes, quarantine has been successfully defended on individuals, small groups, or specific areas. “Quarantine” on whole populations has not and would not be. It has nothing to do with being anti-mask, your government just doesn’t have the power to force everyone to wear masks for half the year because somebody thinks it’sa good idea to prevent their kids from getting minor infections.
    - pmoriarty 6y ago
      The direct effect of COVID-19 on kids is not the issue, but the fact that they can spread it to vulnerable adults, including their teachers, parents, and grandparents, and whoever they infect could infect even more. This has and will continue to cause lots of older people to die, even if the kids themselves remain mostly unharmed. As for the government's power, see what they did in WW2. They had major propaganda campaigns to get everyone on board (like "Loose Lips Sink Ships", Presidential "fireside chat" addresses, and propaganda posters everywhere, etc), a united and determined Congress, and actual leadership that helped the entire nation become aware and engaged with the war effort. If there was this kind of leadership, media effort, and peer-pressure today as there was during WW2, along with laws and actual enforcement against non-compliant anti-maskers, then you can believe there'd be a hell of a lot less anti-maskers even trying to get out of wearing a mask, never mind staging mass anti-mask protests (with Presidential encouragement!). The political bickering, selfishness, and incompetency in the US has already resulted in literally hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths, and will probably cause hundreds of thousands if not millions more.
      - LargoLasskhyfv 6y ago
        While I'm not against mandatory wearing of masks while in public(when necessary), I feel they should have been distributed by emergency services, or placed on pallets in supermarkets, at gas stations, like it happened with telephone books and yellow pages in the past. Same goes for disinfectant. Why should I have to pay overblown prices for that stuff?
    - vkou 6y ago
      Wearing a mask is not being quarantined. You've yet to explain why the government can have the power to compel women to wear clothing over their chest, no power to compel men to do so, and no power to compel either gender to wear a mask. Your argument for it boils down to "That's just the way things are." Things change.
      - colechristensen 6y ago
        Point to the power granted to the government which allows it to force you to wear a mask, or the supreme court case which might be relevant. The first amendment guarantees congress may make no law that limits freedom of expression. How you dress is interpreted as expression, and communicable disease has never been used to justify broad mandates about what you wear in public. Carveouts made for obscenity don't fit, you could never find a cultural context to defend not wearing a mask as obscene. Carveouts for public health risk i.e. quarantine don't fit because the people being affected have no chance to defend themselves in court when subjected, you cannot get judicial review for the entire country. Mask mandates enforceable by law outside the regulation of commerce certainly require constitutional amendment, and that will never happen. Covid is not worse than public health threats in the past. We have been living in relative safety when it comes to disease for several decades, and I believe that has just ended. You will have to find the political will for people to fundamentally and permanently alter the national and global norms of life in order to try to maintain the old status quo, and I just don't see it happening, and I don't see any court holding up mandates.
        vkou 6y ago
        And yet, both government-mandated and private dress codes (Which governments have found to be perfectly binding), ranging from the length of your shirt's sleeves (At a government-ran school), to the requirement to wear shoes to receive service, to the requirement to wear a particular color of clothing to work (Work dress codes), or to receive service, to the requirement to wear protective gear to work, to the requirement to not wear particular items of clothing in certain contexts (face veils) are all completely enforceable, even when they have nothing to do with obscenity. It's a entirely unprincipled double-standard when a high school can censure a girl for wearing a halter top with straps that are narrower then three finger widths, but apparently can't enforce a mask mandate.

Because covering your junk is based on judeo-christian morals which are reflected in our law in ways that certain “obscene” things have historically fallen outside of free expression rights... those are going away and you won’t successfully argue that not wearing a mask is obscene.

pmoriarty 6y ago
No one actually causes the death of someone else by not covering up an "obscene" part of their body. And, as in the case of Typhoid Mary, people have been deprived of their liberty for being a threat to public health. So I wouldn't be too sure about the courts siding with the anti-maskers.
- colechristensen 6y ago
  Yes, quarantine has been successfully defended on individuals, small groups, or specific areas. “Quarantine” on whole populations has not and would not be. It has nothing to do with being anti-mask, your government just doesn’t have the power to force everyone to wear masks for half the year because somebody thinks it’sa good idea to prevent their kids from getting minor infections.
  - pmoriarty 6y ago
    The direct effect of COVID-19 on kids is not the issue, but the fact that they can spread it to vulnerable adults, including their teachers, parents, and grandparents, and whoever they infect could infect even more. This has and will continue to cause lots of older people to die, even if the kids themselves remain mostly unharmed. As for the government's power, see what they did in WW2. They had major propaganda campaigns to get everyone on board (like "Loose Lips Sink Ships", Presidential "fireside chat" addresses, and propaganda posters everywhere, etc), a united and determined Congress, and actual leadership that helped the entire nation become aware and engaged with the war effort. If there was this kind of leadership, media effort, and peer-pressure today as there was during WW2, along with laws and actual enforcement against non-compliant anti-maskers, then you can believe there'd be a hell of a lot less anti-maskers even trying to get out of wearing a mask, never mind staging mass anti-mask protests (with Presidential encouragement!). The political bickering, selfishness, and incompetency in the US has already resulted in literally hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths, and will probably cause hundreds of thousands if not millions more.
    - LargoLasskhyfv 6y ago
      While I'm not against mandatory wearing of masks while in public(when necessary), I feel they should have been distributed by emergency services, or placed on pallets in supermarkets, at gas stations, like it happened with telephone books and yellow pages in the past. Same goes for disinfectant. Why should I have to pay overblown prices for that stuff?
  - vkou 6y ago
    Wearing a mask is not being quarantined. You've yet to explain why the government can have the power to compel women to wear clothing over their chest, no power to compel men to do so, and no power to compel either gender to wear a mask. Your argument for it boils down to "That's just the way things are." Things change.
    - colechristensen 6y ago
      Point to the power granted to the government which allows it to force you to wear a mask, or the supreme court case which might be relevant. The first amendment guarantees congress may make no law that limits freedom of expression. How you dress is interpreted as expression, and communicable disease has never been used to justify broad mandates about what you wear in public. Carveouts made for obscenity don't fit, you could never find a cultural context to defend not wearing a mask as obscene. Carveouts for public health risk i.e. quarantine don't fit because the people being affected have no chance to defend themselves in court when subjected, you cannot get judicial review for the entire country. Mask mandates enforceable by law outside the regulation of commerce certainly require constitutional amendment, and that will never happen. Covid is not worse than public health threats in the past. We have been living in relative safety when it comes to disease for several decades, and I believe that has just ended. You will have to find the political will for people to fundamentally and permanently alter the national and global norms of life in order to try to maintain the old status quo, and I just don't see it happening, and I don't see any court holding up mandates.
      - vkou 6y ago
        And yet, both government-mandated and private dress codes (Which governments have found to be perfectly binding), ranging from the length of your shirt's sleeves (At a government-ran school), to the requirement to wear shoes to receive service, to the requirement to wear a particular color of clothing to work (Work dress codes), or to receive service, to the requirement to wear protective gear to work, to the requirement to not wear particular items of clothing in certain contexts (face veils) are all completely enforceable, even when they have nothing to do with obscenity. It's a entirely unprincipled double-standard when a high school can censure a girl for wearing a halter top with straps that are narrower then three finger widths, but apparently can't enforce a mask mandate.