3 ms·

Constitutional protections of freedom of expression are not absolute. The most well known such limit is that on yelling fire in a crowded theater, which is lim

Constitutional protections of freedom of expression are not absolute. The most well known such limit is that on yelling fire in a crowded theater, which is limited in the interest of public safety. Going outdoors without a mask also impacts public safety, so the government could prohibit it if they wanted to. The problem is that the country is not united on this, and political agendas are getting in the way of keeping people healthy and safe. COVID-19 is definitely a worse health threat than any seen in most Americans' lifetimes. Despite all the shutdowns, social distancing, and mask use, there are already around 200k American deaths from COVID-19, and it hasn't even been a year yet. That's about 50% of American casualties during all of WW2. People are just not taking this seriously enough, and that needs to drastically change if we want a chance of things returning to anything remotely approaching "normal" any time soon.

colechristensen 6y ago
And what is the test for yelling “fire!” in a crowded place? Clear and present danger. You can easily argue that one person yelling falsely in a theater could be believed to cause injury or death in an immediate sense. You cannot make that argument for an undiagnosed person without symptoms or an entire population. Increased risk? Yes. The expectation that an individual action will have short order consequences? No.
- pmoriarty 6y ago
  "Clear and present danger" is a vague term -- just the kind the Supreme Court is infamous for interpreting whatever way they damn well please. You could make a good argument that the hundreds of thousands of dead in the US alone of COVID-19 presents a "clear danger", and that the scientific evidence showing that not wearing a mask increases the odds of infection makes it a "present danger". The danger need not cause deaths in the next minute or second to be "clear and present". Typhoid Mary was imprisoned for the rest of her life for recklessly endangering people with her asymptomatic typhoid infection. People did die because of her actions, but she was imprisoned not because of that but because of the danger she caused to society -- one that did not guarantee anyone would die, but just increase their odds of dying. People coming from infected areas have also been regularly quarantined, even if there was no proof that any particular individual was infected. This was unarguably a limitation on the quarantined individuals' freedom, but it was deemed permissible to protect public health. Requiring the wearing of masks is a much milder curtailment of freedom compared to quarantine, so the Supreme Court could certainly uphold such a public health measure were it to be implemented.

colechristensen 6y ago

And what is the test for yelling “fire!” in a crowded place? Clear and present danger. You can easily argue that one person yelling falsely in a theater could be believed to cause injury or death in an immediate sense. You cannot make that argument for an undiagnosed person without symptoms or an entire population. Increased risk? Yes. The expectation that an individual action will have short order consequences? No.

pmoriarty 6y ago
"Clear and present danger" is a vague term -- just the kind the Supreme Court is infamous for interpreting whatever way they damn well please. You could make a good argument that the hundreds of thousands of dead in the US alone of COVID-19 presents a "clear danger", and that the scientific evidence showing that not wearing a mask increases the odds of infection makes it a "present danger". The danger need not cause deaths in the next minute or second to be "clear and present". Typhoid Mary was imprisoned for the rest of her life for recklessly endangering people with her asymptomatic typhoid infection. People did die because of her actions, but she was imprisoned not because of that but because of the danger she caused to society -- one that did not guarantee anyone would die, but just increase their odds of dying. People coming from infected areas have also been regularly quarantined, even if there was no proof that any particular individual was infected. This was unarguably a limitation on the quarantined individuals' freedom, but it was deemed permissible to protect public health. Requiring the wearing of masks is a much milder curtailment of freedom compared to quarantine, so the Supreme Court could certainly uphold such a public health measure were it to be implemented.