I'd like to point out to anyone who thinks that "you do you" public health is sustainable that it's illegal to wear a mask in many public places in the US. This has only been on hold because of the emergency declaration and that's about to end.
For example, let me introduce you to my local law in Florida. Florida State statute 876.12:
Wearing mask, hood, or other device on public way.—No person or persons over 16 years of age shall, while wearing any mask, hood, or device whereby any portion of the face is so hidden, concealed, or covered as to conceal the identity of the wearer, enter upon, or be or appear upon any lane, walk, alley, street, road, highway, or other public way in this state.
This law was pointed out to my wife by a law enforcement officer who really wanted to arrest her for wearing a mask in a grocery store last year.
If you think you're going to be able to avoid COVID after the end of the emergency declaration you'd better be a full on hermit who never has to venture out.
We have actually been planning on moving out of Florida for years, since prior to the pandemic, but we hope to actually pull it off this year.
While I quoted my local one, there's many states that have these same rules. A lot of them are anti-KKK laws that have been enforced, since prior to the pandemic, against people with chemical sensitivies or allergies who wear masks:
I try and keep my pinned posts relevant to things that are ongoing, but, perhaps it's time for this thread to make a comeback with all of the stories out there about states(https://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/article288384990.html) and universities talking about banning masks.
I thought state legislatures would jump on this immediately at the end of the emergency declaration, and I was wrong about that, but I've always assumed this was coming eventually.
@BE
Yup. It's going to be illegal to protect yourself.
I'm sure the Nazis are salivating at the prospect of cracking down on the last holdouts.
I can confirm they're counting the days down here.
Interesting as Leviticus demands that those carrying respiratory contagions mask in public spaces.
@BE That's terrible -- but it also sounds like that cop was wrong. Surely a grocery store is private property and not a public way.
I'm sure you're correct on that. He pulled her over to his car in the parking lot while she was outside. The grocery store had ostensibly called the police to *help* her because an anti-masker was following her around inside threatening her. He had other ideas about the situation.
I notice you mention NYC in your bio, so for your reference here's the NY state law on the subject:
NEW YORK Penal Law 240.35 (4):
Being masked or in any manner disguised by unusual or unnatural attire or facial alteration, loiters, remains or congregates in a public place with other persons so masked or disguised, or knowingly permits or aids persons so masked or disguised to congregate in a public place; except that such conduct is not unlawful when it occurs in connection with a masquerade party or like entertainment if, when such entertainment is held in a city which has promulgated regulations in connection with such affairs, permission is first obtained from the police or other appropriate authorities;
This is not good. Is there an emergency declaration in NYS or NYC that might mitigate that?
It's an open question as to what each state does with the upcoming situation. With the end of the US emergency declaration I assume that means states would be completely on their own as to funding anything they want to continue. A state like NY could, theoretically, do that. As of now NY's emergency declaration ends in March, it appears. I'd keep an eye on what the Governor does with it then.
That's a pretty ominous sign given that a 9/11 a week are still dying from COVID nationally & NYC hospital beds still have plenty of COVID patients in them. Hopefully some measure of tolerance for N95's will persist even in the absence of formal legal permission. I may need to look into other countries.
People's entire pandemic view has been shaped by the fact that they've been in an emergency declaration for virtually the entire time. I know that most people don't understand how dramatically things could change with the end of the US emergency declaration.
@BE @NadiaYvette @trishanderton there are numerous reasons for mass non-compliance with these unjust laws. Feels unlikely now but a mass movement against repression and spreading death sure is needed.
A lot of things have been needed for a long time that haven't been getting done. I can't count on this time being different somehow. And this isn't the only issue I'm having to say this about.
@BE the NY law was passed in reaction to the anti-rent movement. usually called “masquerade laws,” they were often used to arrest gender non-conforming people and shut down queer spaces.
https://www.nyhistory.org/blogs/behind-the-halloween-mask-power-identity-and-the-law-in-new-york
@BE @trishanderton thankfully, this subsection was repealed in 2020.
https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2019/a10446/amendment/a
I did not catch that when I quickly looked up NY, so thank you for sharing it!
@BE I work with people who come into the office with COVID so yeah. And this is California.
I hear you. My wife's friend and her husband went into work all week last week, in California, while symptomatic with COVID.
@BE I think almost all jurisdictions have a similar law, and the obligatory religious exemptions.
It's a good lesson on why we need honorable and ethical ppl in positions of power...laws can be twisted to dangerous ends.
I only dug into it much at the state level, personally. I believe there's 11 states that have state-wide laws on it. A quick search earlier today showed multiple local jurisdictions, as well.
Yes, many of them were once upon a time well meaning laws, but if they were being enforced against people trying to avoid chemical sensitivities and allergies before the pandemic just imagine how red states, in particular, will enforce them now.
@BE agreed. This is why many people are opposed to creating federal 'domestic terrorism' statutes.
They will be used against 'the others' unfairly.
Tools/laws can be used for good and ill
@BE Yeah, I suspect the bank isn't going to let us keep doing that either...
Probably correct. A large group of people have the belief that ending the emergency declaration won't have any impact on their lives. I see it all over last night and today.
"Oh well, I have insurance. I'm sure it'll pay for anything I need."
"Wear a mask if you want."
"Biden couldn't get more funding from Congress anyway, this doesn't change anything."
Because everyone's lived through the same pandemic period of time in which an emergency declaration was in place, I don't think they have thought through what it actually covers. I suspect a lot of people, and not just the 7-15 million who will lose their Medicaid benefits, will find that they don't really like what happens after May 11th.
@BE
Geezus
@BE very glad I live in California, not in Florida...
Will probably be enforced differently there, but, here's California's:
CALIFORNIA Penal Code Section 182-185
185. Section One Hundred and Eighty-five. It shall be unlawful for any person to wear any mask, false whiskers, or any personal disguise (whether complete or partial) for the purpose of: One--Evading or escaping discovery, recognition, or identification in the commission of any public offense. Two--Concealment, flight, or escape, when charged with, arrested for, or convicted of, any public offense. Any person violating any of the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor.
@BE what the fuck? This reads like hoodies are illegal too. Guess Florida is where freedom, goes to die as well.
To be honest I hadn't even focused on that part, but, it kind of does sound that way. In the end, it's all in the enforcement.
@BE It does look like the rest of the statute is the important part.
It's all in the enforcement, right? It certainly doesn't meet any of the exemptions and, as our local law enforcement has made clear the believe it fits the applicability. I would assume under paragraph 3.
@BE Oh wow I hadn’t even thought of that. I believe Virginia has a similar law and a similarly awful governor. The only reason he isn’t worse is because we have a very narrow Dem majority in the state senate to serve as a firewall. And to people saying, “just move”, it’s not so easy when your home, family and work are centered in a place. 🥺
Absolutely. So, here's Virginia's law:
VIRGINIA Section 18.2-422:
Prohibition of wearing of masks in certain places; exceptions.
It shall be unlawful for any person over sixteen years of age while wearing any mask, hood or other device whereby a substantial portion of the face is hidden or covered so as to conceal the identity of the wearer, to be or appear in any public place, or upon any private property in this Commonwealth without first having obtained from the owner or tenant thereof consent to do so in writing. However, the provisions of this section shall not apply to persons (i) wearing traditional holiday costumes; (ii) engaged in professions, trades, employment or other activities and wearing protective masks which are deemed necessary for the physical safety of the wearer or other persons; (iii) engaged in any bona fide theatrical production or masquerade ball; or (iv) wearing a mask, hood or other device for bona fide medical reasons upon the advice of a licensed physician or osteopath and carrying on his person an affidavit from the physician or osteopath specifying the medical necessity for wearing the device and the date on which the wearing of the device will no longer be necessary and providing a brief description of the device. The violation of any provisions of this section shall constitute a Class 6 felony.
Notice that it *does* have a specific carve out for "protective masks which are deemed necessary for the physical safety of the wearer or other persons" which the Florida law does not. You would hope that would make it clear that a mask during COVID times would be allowed, but, given that Jha even recently said “There is no study in the world that shows that masks work that well" I assume that any governor that wanted to could jump on that statement and say that masks aren't protective.
It was pointed out to me privately here, that I did post the Virginia law, but didn't discuss the fact that it does, specifically, state that to wear a mask in Virgina you would have to be:
carrying on his person an affidavit from the physician or osteopath specifying the medical necessity for wearing the device and the date on which the wearing of the device will no longer be necessary and providing a brief description of the device.
Perhaps that's a way forward in these places? At least in Virginia it's spelled out. Might be something to consider!
@BE
Florida is where white people go to die.
@BE I abhor Florida more than most people do, but this ignores the existence of sections 876.155 and 876.16 which limit the scope of that fairly massively.
https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/0876.155
https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/0876.16
I'm not a lawyer, but, I disagree. I did bring this up elsewhere in the thread, not that I would expect anyone to read it all and find it. It doesn't ignore 15 or 16, to me, on multiple points.
It's the enforcement, right? The local police certainly believe it's applicable, and this law has, in fact, been used against people wearing masks for allergies and chemical sensitivities *prior* to the pandemic. It has not become more politically acceptable over the last three years down here.
As for the exemptions, it doesn't meet any of them.
As for the applicability I assumed elsewhere that it met paragraph 3 and I believe that's what local law enforcement believes as well.
In the end, I'm going to say it one more time just for emphasis, it's all about the enforcement. It wasn't *intended* for people wearing an N95 for allergies, but it's been used as such before.
@BE I mean, yes, a local LEO can misread this and cite someone. But there is absolutely no defendable way that wearing a mask as COVID protection meets any of the four applicability groupings in .155, and I would be willing to bet a large sun that either a DA would be unwilling to sustain the charge or a judge would throw them out. Sure, it’s a huge HUGE pain in the ass for someone to find themselves having to actually defend themselves — no question there. But the law doesn’t apply.
We'll agree to disagree for the most part on this. This has been a largely academic discussion prior to the pandemic discussing how people have, in fact, been arrested for wearing a mask in public that's going to become real for people in a few months.
https://www.anapsid.org/cnd/mcs/maskcodes.html
https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/grggenl17&div=35&id=&page=
Just to make myself clear, which I realize I didn't, and not to argue it with you I'd like to add that when I said paragraph 3 I'm pointing to "harassment" which is problematic in Florida.
"In Florida, both harassment and stalking involve behavior that distresses another person, and both are loosely defined. Florida defines harassment as behavior that causes substantial emotional distress to a person and serves no legitimate purpose."
https://legalbeagle.com/6369919-harassment-stalking-laws-florida.html
This is the state in which people complain all of the time, and have enshrined law to combat, about talking positively about black people in history because it causes emotional distress to white kids.
Given our experiences here in Florida I absolutely believe that wearing a mask will be made out to be "emotionally distressing" to those not wearing a mask and they will point to the COVID Czar himself, Jha, stating that there's no study that says that masks are effective.
I should have made that clear up front instead of saying "paragraph 3" but I hadn't had enough caffeine at that point in my day yet :)
@BE So much for wraparound sunglasses.
@BE Ah, Florida is now scratched from my list of places to visit.
I really loved Morikami Museum and Gardens.
Too bad for them.
@BE sorry to do this but this law has nothing to do with Covid masks. And it’s not new. It’s about wearing a mask to avoid being caught in criminal acts ..not trying to troll but I posted this somewhere and got dragged mightily for not knowing the law then I was forced to read it
Don't apologize. I don't expect people to read every comment and every reply, but, this has been brought up multiple times and I replied to each and every one and I 100% stand by what I said. I've broken down exactly what paragraphs I'm talking about in each section, including the applications and exemptions.
As I have stated many times, it's a 1951 anti-KKK law. It is not a law specifically about COVID, nor the type of mask you think of when you think about this topic.
It is, however, a law that has been used *prior* to the pandemic to arrest people who wore the type of mask you and I are thinking about for allergies or chemical sensitivities.
Anyone who says it won't be used for that could be correct, but, they're ignoring the actual history of it. I will put near certainty on it that police somewhere will use it for exactly this purpose after the end of the emergency declaration.
I mean, personally, the police already told my wife exactly that. Why would I doubt them?
@BE I think it’s even more relevant when we talk about being able to circumvent the surveillance state. At least that was my reply to conspiracy theorists 😁
I couldn't agree more, and as people have questioned what the laws are, how they've been used, etc. and I've dug further into it you see somewhere like Virginia, who has virtually the identical law on the books, specifically stating that to wear a mask for your health that you have to have a physician's note on you whenever you're in public stating what the mask looks like and how long you'll need it. Then you begin to realize what you're saying has obviously crossed the minds of the people making the law. They don't want there to be freedom to cover your face eternally.
Honestly, again, no apologies, I appreciate when people question something I said because if I can't defend it then I shouldn't have said it. I'm always wary of living in an echo chamber.
@BE and thank you for your thoughtful reply
When an immunocompromised person is denied access to the sidewalk, that should make for some interesting legal arguments. It's bound to happen very soon, and then the ADA will lead to the Courts voiding that law.
It's also an opportunity. I would be making the political ads early, while it's still fresh in people's minds.
I know things get buried in all of the comments and replies, but it has been used *prior* to the pandemic, according to academic papers, against people using masks for allergies or chemical sensitivities. I have no reference on any case law, nor do I know whether any's been brought. That's really way outside of my wheelhouse.
In the end, this example or others, I just am trying to point out to people that they've spent their entire pandemic time in an emergency declaration and probably haven't thought through all of the way what ending it means.
@BE this is utterly terrifying.
@BE how does that square with florida's RFRA? it would seem to be in direct conflict with religious mandates to cover one's face.
@BE also, it seems that your cop wasn't aware of the FL requirements for intent under Florida Statute Section 876.155, to be guilty of violating 876.12?
this note identifies some FL caselaw on the topic, but my google isn't strong enough to quickly find the referenced opinion: https://criminaldefenseattorneytampa.com/practice-areas/face-mask/
I hadn't actually seen that link, so thank you.
So, I know this post and the comments have gotten unwieldily. I mentioned this a couple of times, but what I believe is that under paragraph 3:
(3) With the intent to intimidate, threaten, abuse, or harass any other person
What the policeman was saying was that it was my *wife* who was harassing the woman following her around threatening her in the store for wearing a mask.
Florida harassment law is "problematic" because it's ill defined:
"In Florida, both harassment and stalking involve behavior that distresses another person, and both are loosely defined. Florida defines harassment as behavior that causes substantial emotional distress to a person and serves no legitimate purpose."
https://legalbeagle.com/6369919-harassment-stalking-laws-florida.html
This is the state in which people complain all of the time, and have enshrined law to combat, about talking positively about black people in history because it causes emotional distress to white kids.
It's been used prior to the pandemic, and not just in Florida, for masking against allergies or chemical sensitivities, so, given the political nature of it and Florida I know we won't be the ones testing it out in May after the emergency declaration ends.
@BE thanks for reiterating this - i hadn't gone down all the response threads to your OP. what a shitshow.
At this point I honestly don't expect anyone to try to work through the whole thing. It blew up a lot more than I was anticipating, for sure.
@BE Jesus. Have you considered a move?