• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

New York finally does something right!!!

mrjurrs said:
Quite frankly this law reminds me of a dress code. If they can take your mask they'll be coming for your tank tops next week!
Click to expand...

It definitely does. I actually edited that in before I saw your response. The section above the second quote became:
​
That said, the idea of government saying "we associate this dress choice with crime" would be a horrible basis for a dress code law. Open that door and I can guess which other laws might follow. ​
​
That also said, there's been a bunch of these laws lately and I'm curious to see how the Federalist Society Court of the United States responds. It's been a long time since I did a proper deep dive, but from what I recall 1st Amd jurisprudence is a morass, not something to state strong opinions about off the bat.​
​
​
It's just that it's been long enough since I delved into 1st Amd stuff that I'm not comfortable saying anything with certainty off the cuff here.
 
Hari Seldon said:
There was an older guy at the Y where I just left. He was wearing a mask, headphones, hat, gloves and something around his neck. Should he be arrested?
Click to expand...
Was he white or black? Big difference you know.
 
Maidenrules29 said:
I sure hope this new law isn't found unconstitutional. This needs to keep happening.


www.vice.com

First Teenager Arrested Under New York County’s Controversial Mask Ban

A Long Island law banned face masks in the name of public safety. The first person to be arrested for violating it was an 18-year-old carrying a knife.
www.vice.com www.vice.com
Click to expand...
The weird part is, certain face masks can simultaneously aid public health by partially blocking the natural human ability to sneeze or expectorate, and arguably reduce public safety by preventing a portion of a person's face from being seen.

Does this law apply to religious face coverings?

Edit: Actually that's not weird at all, it's just a bit of conflicting purposes.
 
Mr Person said:
It definitely does. I actually edited that in before I saw your response. The section above the second quote became:
​
That said, the idea of government saying "we associate this dress choice with crime" would be a horrible basis for a dress code law. Open that door and I can guess which other laws might follow. ​
​
That also said, there's been a bunch of these laws lately and I'm curious to see how the Federalist Society Court of the United States responds. It's been a long time since I did a proper deep dive, but from what I recall 1st Amd jurisprudence is a morass, not something to state strong opinions about off the bat.​
​
​
It's just that it's been long enough since I delved into 1st Amd stuff that I'm not comfortable saying anything with certainty off the cuff here.
Click to expand...
As a HS teacher, I'm confronted with that issue on a daily basis. If dress codes don't work in HS, they sure as heck won't work with adults.
 
SNOWFLAKE said:
OH PLZ!!
I know there are still a few on here don't "get" my sarcastic wit, but let me point out the obvious: WHITE GUYS wearing masks being told they can't would kick up a storm, but telling some black guys they can't wear a mask and they complain, tell 'em get over it. Sheesh.
Click to expand...
I agree. The patriot front types are cowards for wearing masks, and if they werent perhaps planning on doing something illegal they wouldn't wear them.
 
ModernDiogenes said:
Obviously anti-Semitic acts are illegal and horrendous but this is an infringement on personal liberty and I’m not OK with solving problems that way. I’m a cop who is against The Patriot Act because there was nothing patriotic about it. It flat out was a win for the bad guys. Any time you decrease personal liberty to “make us safer” the bad guys win.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't think it's just aimed at anti-semitism regardless of what any politician might say. My assumption is that it has to do with people masking up, putting on hoodies, and robbing stores/people when all the victim(s) sees it the eyes.

(Note: that's not a defense of the law)
 
Hari Seldon said:
There was an older guy at the Y where I just left. He was wearing a mask, headphones, hat, gloves and something around his neck. Should he be arrested?
Click to expand...
What kind of mask was it? And I'm sure exceptions are made for religious/medical reasons.
 
Mr Person said:
I wouldn't think it's just aimed at anti-semitism regardless of what any politician might say. My assumption is that it has to do with people masking up, putting on hoodies, and robbing stores/people when all the victim(s) sees it the eyes.

(Note: that's not a defense of the law)
Click to expand...

Acknowledged you aren’t defending the new law.

It may very well do that, and no doubt it makes our jobs tougher but that is what we get paid for.

I’m NOT in favor of making us less free to be safer. I’m dine with the quote attributed to Franklin (although that is probably wrong) on that: ”They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. “
 
ModernDiogenes said:
It may very well do that, and no doubt it makes our jobs tougher but that is what we get paid for.

I’m NOT in favor of making us less free to be safer. I’m dine with the quote attributed to Franklin (although that is probably wrong) on that: ”They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. “
Click to expand...

But surely you agree there are limits somewhere. Like laws against driving drunk and/or ****ed up on drugs. That impinges the freedom of people who like to get ****ed up, and it makes all of us safer.

I wouldn't get rid of something that stark, for example.
 
lwf said:
How does me wearing a balaclava make you unsafe?
Click to expand...
It is a public safety issue when the police cannot identify criminals due to whole-face coverings, and therefore not able to find and bring them to justice. Are you for criminals being able to hide their identity so they can get away with crimes?
 
ataraxia said:
Aren't we already there? I mean most places will arrest you for "indecent exposure" if you don't at least wear things like underwears or bras (for women).
Click to expand...
There was a time when men could be arrested for not covering their nipples in public. "Public decency laws" are a slippery slope, and are examples of government overreach, in my opinion. Covering the genitalia in public makes sense from a hygiene perspective. Anything beyond that (including nipples regardless of gender) should be challenged on first amendment grounds. In some US states, (and much of Europe,) being nude in public isn't a crime in itself.

1724881520879.png
 
Maidenrules29 said:
It is a public safety issue when the police cannot identify criminals due to whole-face coverings, and therefore not able to find and bring them to justice. Are you for criminals being able to hide their identity so they can get away with crimes?
Click to expand...
But I'm not a criminal unless I commit a crime, yes?
 
MamboDervish said:
I still wear a mask on public transportation during rush hours. I'd be tickled to be arrested for that, I'd refuse to remove it, and I'd refuse to pay any fine. A judge would be faced with incarcerating a senior citizen with no arrest record for anything, or dismissing the charges.

I'll let you guess the likely outcome of that contest.
Click to expand...
In Nassau County, New York, however, a new local law has banned facemasks—no, not the N-95 ones.
Click to expand...
 
Mr Person said:
But surely you agree there are limits somewhere. Like laws against driving drunk and/or ****ed up on drugs. That impinges the freedom of people who like to get ****ed up, and it makes all of us safer.

I wouldn't get rid of something that stark, for example.
Click to expand...

Laws against driving drunk aren’t similar. A crime is already in progress. Reasonable man standard. Known or should have known. So intent *is* present.

Example: Someone is overheard planning a bank robbery. They get guns, they get masks. They are arrested outside of the bank. It’s attempted bank robbery. Charge them. You can prove intent and acts toward completion of the crime.

Someone does nothing more than put a mask on, it’s an attempt at thought policing. How do you know what they had in mind? It’s nothing more than ‘dress up’ at that point. We don’t arrest people in this country for their thoughts.
 
mrjurrs said:
Clearly unconstitutional. What is the governments interest in stopping people from wearing masks?

Here's the shocking part...the arrested person was a person of color.
Click to expand...
I agree, and I seldom agree with you. Now if they wanted to increase the trouble someone can face if they commit a crime when wearing a mask, i can agree with that.

Nobody should need to wear a mask that conceals the face, but nobody has the right to say they cannot. This will be found to be unconstitutional.
 
lwf said:
But I'm not a criminal unless I commit a crime, yes?
Click to expand...
We could lump in wearing the balaclavas with "possession of burglary tools". Same principle. You are about to use an object to help commit a crime.
 
Maidenrules29 said:
I sure hope this new law isn't found unconstitutional. This needs to keep happening.


www.vice.com

First Teenager Arrested Under New York County’s Controversial Mask Ban

A Long Island law banned face masks in the name of public safety. The first person to be arrested for violating it was an 18-year-old carrying a knife.
www.vice.com www.vice.com
Click to expand...
I understanding and agree with your sentiments, but just like the first amendment. People are allowed to say thing you do not agree with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom