Is it true that states are banning mask wearing?

[goaded]

It was stupid and dangerous to not pass mask mandates at the height of the pandemic, but at least there was the argument of personal freedom.

Banning wearing masks puts people who are at higher risk of dying from airborne disease, well, at risk of dying from airborne disease. Why wouldn't you allow them to protect themselves as much as possible? Isn't that their personal freedom? Isn't it a more important personal freedom to be allowed to protect yourself over the freedom to endanger others?

If the laws exclude "for medical reasons", or suchlike, fine, but do they?

Updates

+1 y

OK, a little research indicates it's NC and NY that are talking about them right now.

The problem is that it's not easy to stop criminals using masks to avoid identification and not allow masks for people who really need them.

AIUI, the NC law does now allow medical reasons, and NYC is still considering it's law.

As usual, nothing is black and white.

[CrazyGirl2]

Yes, several states and municipalities have either discussed, or considered the banning of masks, especially during protests, or have already passed bans on mask wearing especially during protests. I did some research and below is a summary of the states and municipalities which have banned the wearing of masks during protests or demonstrations.

Georgia: has had discussions and legal actions regarding laws that restrict or regulate the wearing of masks during protests. But no law has been passed as of yet

Louisiana: has also been involved in discussions about laws pertaining to masks worn during protests. But again, no law has been passed as of yet

Minnesota: has seen legislative discussions and actions related to masks and their use during protests. Yet no law has been passed as of yet

Virginia: has been another state where regulations and laws concerning the wearing of masks during protests have been debated, but nothing has passed as of yet.

Washington State: has had legislative efforts and legal discussions regarding the use of masks by protesters. Lawmakers have considered various proposals aimed at addressing concerns about public safety and ensuring transparency during public demonstrations, but as of yet have not passed any legislation.

Florida: Governor Ron DeSantis signed a bill into law that addresses wearing masks or other disguises during any protests or demonstrations. The law, known as HB 49/SB 76, prohibits the wearing of masks, hoods, or other devices that conceal the identity of the wearer while participating in certain public demonstrations or assemblies.

Texas: There have been discussions and legislative efforts related to the wearing of masks or other face coverings during protests, particularly on college campuses.

Texas lawmakers had considered a bill (Senate Bill 1567) that would have prohibited the wearing of masks or other face coverings during protests on college campuses. The rationale behind such legislation often revolves around concerns about safety, the ability of law enforcement to identify individuals, and the potential for masks to be used to intimidate or conceal identities during protests.

While Senate Bill 1567 did not ultimately pass, discussions and proposals regarding similar measures can periodically arise in legislative sessions, reflecting ongoing debates over the balance between freedom of expression and public safety.

North Carolina: Following extended debate from Democrats, the General Assembly passed the measure in a 69-43 vote. The state Senate passed the compromise bill last week. It now heads to Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper’s desk.

The legislation — which previously removed a 2020 exemption for wearing a mask in public for health purposes — moved swiftly through the Senate last month. But it halted in the House after Rep. Erin Pare, Wake County’s lone Republican General Assembly member, said she wouldn’t approve it because of the health exemption removal. Republicans have a narrow supermajority in the legislature that requires all party members to remain in lockstep to approve bills and override vetoes.

The House then sent the bill back to a committee of GOP lawmakers to negotiate changes. They reached a deal on the bill last week.

Washington, D. C. has also seen discussions and regulations concerning masks or face coverings during protests and demonstrations.

In 2017, the D. C. Council passed emergency legislation that prohibited individuals from wearing masks or other face coverings to conceal their identity while participating in public demonstrations within the District of Columbia. This legislation was introduced amid concerns about public safety, particularly in light of protests where individuals wearing masks might engage in unlawful activities or violence without fear of identification. However, this law has not been enforced during the recent ANTIFA protests, nor has it been enforced firing the masked protests relating to the Israel / Palestine protests

The emergency legislation was subsequently extended and has been part of ongoing discussions about balancing the rights of individuals to demonstrate peacefully with the need for public safety and law enforcement's ability to maintain order and protect public spaces.

As with other jurisdictions, the regulation of masks during protests can be a contentious issue, with considerations of constitutional rights, public safety, and the potential for misuse or intimidation.
____________________________________

In addition to the above mentioned states, several municipalities have also enacted mask bans as a reaction to people covering their face during protests, which turned the violent. These include:
Portland, Oregon: In 2019, the city council passed an ordinance that prohibits wearing a mask, hood, or other face coverings while participating in a protest if the person is engaging in violent or disorderly conduct. This ordinance was part of efforts to address clashes between protesters and law enforcement and to increase accountability during demonstrations.

Charlottesville, Virginia: Following the 2017 "Unite the Right" rally, where participants wore masks and engaged in violent behavior, the city enacted an ordinance that restricts the wearing of masks or hoods during demonstrations on public streets or spaces. The ordinance aimed to enhance public safety and deter intimidation tactics. which remains in effect today.

Savannah, Georgia: The city council passed an ordinance in 2020 prohibiting the wearing of masks, hoods, or face coverings with the intent to conceal one's identity during public demonstrations. This measure was aimed at preventing potential violence and promoting transparency during protests.

Alameda, California: In 2018, the city council passed an ordinance prohibiting the wearing of masks or other face coverings to conceal one's identity while participating in public assemblies, including protests. The ordinance aimed to balance First Amendment rights with public safety concerns.

These examples illustrate how various municipalities have responded to concerns about public safety, in the face of intimidation tactics, and the need for law enforcement to be able to identify individuals involved in criminal activities during protests. The specifics of these ordinances vary, and they often generate debate regarding civil liberties and the right to anonymous political expression versus the need for public order and safety. However, these laws seem to be selectively enforced, as there have been no documented arrests or citations during the recent ANTIFA protects, nor during the Israel / Palestine protests.

It is worthy of note, that the very first anti-mask laws within the US for protests, demonstrations, and assembly’s were aimed at stopping (or at least identifying) members of the Ku Klux Klan!

I hope this was of some help.
Laura 🤗

[goaded]

I think I love you! Let me get back to you.

[CrazyGirl2]

Sure thing sweetie. I’ll be waiting here with baited breath, to see if my love for you is finally reciprocated. 😊

[goaded]

You didn't just put my question into ChatGPT, did you?

[CrazyGirl2]

WHAT? HELL NO! I spent well over 30-45 minutes googling mask bans! (which was infuriating by the way, because almost ALL of the answers were referring to with CoVid)

I researched at least ten to fifteen websites, including a law office website. But I promise I will include ALL of my sources in your answers from now on, if I use sources. If you read my answer from last week about all the new changes, I clearly stated my objection to the use of AI. I feel it is ruining sites like this

I’ll go so far as to say that If my answer is similar to an AI answer, then I did a ver poor job of answering. Because every time I’ve used AI to ask psychology questions I already know the answers to. and It got the answers unbelievably and horribly wrong, So I certainly would not use it here.

But again, when I use sources in your questions, as I did here I will include ALL of my sources from now on. That was MY mistake, I thought about it, but didn't think it was necessary. I won’t make that mistake again

I went back and tried to find the same exact sources again, but I could only find one:
N. Carolina: it would not allow me to post this link. I’ll DM it to you.

Hopefully my use of a verified source for one state, will be enough to prove I use sources for ALL of them. If not, the best I can do is include ALL sources from now on.

I hope that helps clarify it for you.
Sincerely, Laura. 🤗

[CrazyGirl2]

I have DM you the link that it would not allow me to post here. (I believe because it had to do with the subject of mask bands, that GG thought it was an anti-Covid post which it was not.)

In that link, if you simply do a text search on that page by using CTRL-F on a Windows machine or COMMAND – F on a Mac, then type the search string " a 69-43 vote” you will be able to find the exact paragraph I use for my information on North Carolina.

[goaded]

I'm really, really sorry! Please accept my most humble apologies. I wonder if the problem with your link was the part on the end with the hash, colon, tilde, colon...

Trying it here failed, too, here's the link without:
apnews.com/.../masks-ban-covid-protests-north-carolina-7d71ac85b393d6a7ddc919ac65d03dbd

[goaded]

I had the same problem finding anything about Georgia, for example, that's why I asked.

[CrazyGirl2]

Yeah, finding A source isn't that hard, finding that EXACT same source a second time, is not that easy. unless you word the question in the search engine exactly the same, you get different results.
As it pertains to Georgia, they have not passed a law, and if I remember correctly, much of that info came from either an attorney's website or the website of a large law firm, where they listed the states who have had discussions but not passed any laws, at least yet. The actual answer to your question is: Yes it’s true, but very few states have done it. Like I said, I will most DEFINITELY include ALL of my sources from hear on when answering your questions, unless they are my opinion, and be more clear in mixed answers, which is MY opinion, and which is verifiable fact.

[CrazyGirl2]

I take accusations of academic fraud very personally, and very seriously. I’m well aware that THIS is not an institute of higher learning, but nonetheless I still answer serious questions with the same high ethical standards I am held to here at school. I have never been accused of academic fraud, or academic dishonesty before on GaG, So I’ll just include my sources when I look anything up. Sometimes, although my knowledge comes from prior research or education, I have no idea exactly which book it was in, let alone the page, paragraph, and author. However, when, like I did with this question, I do look up data online, I will be SURE to add my sources.
I thank you for pointing out the issue with the link (which was copy/pasted from the URL). I’ll be careful to look for unnecessary tracking data that is added to the URL, which can be removed and still allow access to the page where I got the data.
Thanks for letting me know.
L.

[goaded]

Again, I can't apologise enough.

[CrazyGirl2]

No apology necessary, even if it were, I absolutely forgive you. So let’s just move on and put this behind us.

[CrazyGirl2]

Thank you @goaded for the MHO! I truly appreciate that.

[jennifer_bloom]

It could be an attempt to mitigate ambush thieves and assaults that use masks to conceal their facial traits. The solution is not ideal for everyone, I guess.

[goaded]

Yes, I agree. I think it shouldn't be all-or-nothing, though. Wear a mask, you might get questioned by police. That should reduce people wearing them for crimes.

[Kaneki05]

I think the law should have no say on this.
A mask is not a weapon and does bring harm it's self therefore it's not in any grounds to be outlawed.
If a shop wants to say No masks allowed on a sign that's fair because it's their shop they have the right to refuse entry. Same could go for an Airport or anything within a state of operation. But banning their use in general is a unjustified law.

There is a shop near me that say's no hoods allowed to be up, meaning if you go in there your hood better be down otherwise the only thing you are is a criminal.
Which is totally fair but if they came outside saying hey you can't wear your hoodie up on this street that would be dumb.

And if one wants to claim medical reasons well good luck finding a place that allows masks but there is also many ways to make this a non-issue.
If you can prove your identity, and your the only one with a mask it's not gonna be hard to figure out you committed a crime. Like if I handed them a passport stood back took of my mask for a moment they go okay that's you put the mask on simples.

[Red_Arrow]

There are some places that are considering banning wearing face mask. New York is considering banning wearing face masks on subways where there has been a rise in criminal attacks by people wearing face masks. Recently a group of pro-Palestinian protesters, some of them masked, crowded into a subway car while one man instructed all Zionists — a term for people who support the existence of a Jewish state — to exit the train. Often face coverings make it impossible for authorities to identify people who break the law or engage in hate speech. So the law is not aimed at the wearing of masks to protect against what you might breathe, but to prevent hiding your identity. However, I do not see any reason to fear police ripping masks off kids at Halloween.

[goaded]

That's the problem with laws that aren't flexible. Just add "for a medical reason" to the law, and the courts can sort out Bonny and Clyde from the 12 year old with Leukemia.

It's not even a "belief" thing; you just need a doctor to explain you need one. "God will save me from the nasty disease" is a religious thing, "doctors say I will likely die from the nasty disease" is factual.

[goaded]

Another doctor saying "No, he's healthy as a horse" will nullify it.

[goaded]

By the way, the asshole on the train wasn't wearing a mask.

[Red_Arrow]

Thank you for MHO. :-)

[Drewtate]

They need to return to Mayor Rudolph Giuliani's broken window policies to reduce crime.

It's the same in virtually every city that has defunded the police, shoplifting and other crime is spiralling out of control.

Banning masks won't work, why would they when shoplifters are already breaking the law? What is needed is for the police to start enforcing existing laws.

[goaded]

www.motherjones.com/.../

[RebelinSteel]

For protests it should be illegal to hide your face. I can understand in some countries showing your face would see you in a gulag, political prison or dead, however in the vast majority of western countries that does not happen.
For protests, riots etc, a no masks allowed rule, not even for medical reasons, as if you have medical reasons, don’t join thousands of other people.
For medical reasons in general, just make it large groups over x amount, including protests and riots.

[goaded]

I can see that. I'd still leave "for medical reasons", because they're for medical reasons.

I think it matters in what kind of country you're in; how can you be sure showing your face won't "see you in a gulag, political prison or dead" in a country replacing the government with loyalists and defunding the FBI? That's literally Project 2025.

[RebelinSteel]

If someone has medical reasons to wear a mask, then it would be a tad stupid attending an event with thousands of others, if there is a very valid reason, then a bit like planning the route, the organisers can get dispensation. Far too many wear face coverings here for various protests, the protest should be stopped until all face coverings are removed.

[goaded]

Wouldn't it still be their right?

[RebelinSteel]

Right?
There is a right to protest, however it must be peaceful, follow the prescribed route and in this case without masks.

[exitseven]

There were many studies that said that masks did nothing to stop the spread of covid or prevent people from contracting it. In the 50s schoolchildren were told to hide under their desks in case of nuclear attack. We laugh at this now and in a few years we will laugh at the mask mandates.

[goaded]

No there weren't. Quite the opposite. There was one review that only considered randomised controlled trials (which would be unethical for masks which have been known to work for over a century) that couldn't find conclusive evidence that they did. On the other hand, there was a review of counties in one state that could choose to mandate masks or not and the infection rate was far lower in the counties that had the mandate.

[exitseven]

The one I remember most was the one from MIT scientists. They actually got different kinds of masks and they set up a way to simulate people breathing and used particles the size on covid viruses and the particles sprayed all over the room.

[goaded]

This MIT?
"The preponderance of evidence indicates that mask wearing reduces transmissibility per contact by reducing transmission of infected respiratory particles in both laboratory and clinical contexts."
https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/129615

Assuming you remember correctly, if they only looked at particles "the size [of] covid viruses", they weren't looking at the droplets containing the vast majority of what people actually breath out and are reduced by even rubbish masks, let alone N95.

Of course, you could look at other studies that weren't chosen for you by people with an agenda. Like these scientists did:
"Robust available data support the use of face masks in community settings to reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and should inform future responses to epidemics and pandemics caused by respiratory viruses."
jamanetwork.com/.../2811136

Maybe next time you won't have a large portion of the public that endanger themselves and others for political reasons.

[exitseven]

If you had a mask that could prevent the spread of something the size of the covid virus it would be reasonable to think it would be effective. There were many masks tested, some were the N-95 type and they had small particles that would pass through the masks.

[goaded]

What happens when 90% of the virus particles are stopped by a mask, do you think?

[exitseven]

The report I saw did not report how muck the mask stopped. They had a closed chamber and simulated human breathing and the particles glowed under an ultra violent light. They were getting sprayesxall over the place and it looked like the masks did not even slow the particles down.

[goaded]

Try to find it, because I don't believe it said what you think. jamanetwork.com/.../2811136

[exitseven]

It was a few years ago. Ivremember the MIT part and I remember seeing the lille particles light up when they turned on the black light

[goaded]

I remember @joeldalton insisting that his favoured scientist was right that only 50,000 Americans could possibly die of covid. Even if every one of them caught it without a vaccine. He also showed a video of people vaping through masks, but without showing vaping without one (or recognising that the oily vapours were explicitly not trapped by N95 masks).

Find me a modern review or study that says masks don't have any effect.

[exitseven]

The gym I workout in required masks. I do a HIIT workout and the mask would make it hard to breathe and after a while it would be soaked through. I bought several of the masks that had the one way valves built into them. i took out the little rubber disks and just had two big holes in the masks. I suppose it worked just as well as all of the others

[goaded]

Find me a modern review or study that says masks don't have any effect.

They didn't. If you'd had covid, you'd have been far more likely to give it to other people. Just like the Trump rallies and debate where they broke the law.

[Juxtapose]

Well you also see a lot of criminals cover up their faces as well and it would do good for people to get rid of this masking paranoia over overblown pandemics.

I am all for it. Let's stick it to the covid fanatics, Muslims who oppress women, Antifa, BLM, terrorists and criminals in general all at the same time!

[goaded]

That "overblown pandemic" killed well over a million Americans. By all means, add "wearing a mask for no medical reason" to the indictments for rioters, but don't punish vulnerable people who need them.

"stick it to" is fascist talk, in case you didn't know that.

[Jennz6]

No, I don’t think they are banning wearing masks, maybe masks mandate. Also, where they are rioting they should ban them.

[goaded]

"North Carolina lawmakers approve mask bill that allows health exemption after pushback" apnews.com/.../masks-ban-covid-protests-north-carolina-7d71ac85b393d6a7ddc919ac65d03dbd

I mean, there are places and reasons for banning masks, like in states where the KKK were popular, and rioting and such are also good reasons. But there are good reasons for wearing protective masks, too.

Honestly, I didn't research this before I asked the question. The point is that there are grey areas in life. We should accept that, and the pointer should move to and fro, but demanding 100% compliance rarely works.

[Jennz6]

I agree with you

[Red_Arrow]

On the other side, in North Carolina, where a law banning face coverings has been on the books since 1953, the state Legislature recently passed a bill that would increase penalties for anyone who commits a crime while wearing a mask. The Ohio attorney general warned protesters last month that they could face felony charges for obscuring their faces under a law that was passed in the state more than 70 years ago to deter the Ku Klux Klan. Texas and Florida have also relied on decades-old anti-masking statutes in their responses to pro-Palestinian demonstrations.

[goaded]

@Red_Arrow Those actually sound like reasonable restrictions. At least if the protesters know about them.

[Jennz6]

@goaded
What Laura said @CrazyGirl2 💕

[CrazyGirl2]

Thank you so much Jenn! ( @jennz6 ) I really appreciate that.
You’re the best!
Laura 🤗

[dustybiker2]

People always know who I am in full motorcycle gear. Just stab criminals with a fork as an identifying mark and leave people with weak immune systems alone.

[Static_In_The_Attic]

In the age of facial recognition masks are not helping especially when it comes to protesters & criminals & those are the reasons why states are starting to ban masks in public.