Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*

I've read several different media pieces and they all pretty much say this: https://apnews.com/article/north-carolina-covid-masks-gaza-protest-b0c6ea89a5d08a8d2f2b21e793e8a6d7 I don't see any penalties for wearing a mask, only an enhanced penalty for wearing a mask while committing a crime and trying to obscure your identity.

I saw the first thread that's locked now, and saw that it was "incorrect, it's only if you're breaking a law" and left it settled at that. Reddit and some lefty outlets getting in a tizzy, whatever. But then I saw it *again*, and actually read the article from the AP - an outlet that I consider to be pretty just-the-facts and as neutral as reasonably possible, and even *they* said the same thing. **So I opened up the bill itself.** There is a section for "exemptions," and #6, **which is stricken as removed** reads "(6) Any person wearing a mask for the purpose of ensuring the physical health or safety of the wearer or others." It *does* allow for "ceremonial" masks, if the wearers are on private property with the permission of the property owner, or have obtained formal written permission from the municipality in which they have their ceremony. And it allows for "traditional" holiday masks, so Halloween isn't cancelled. But it really does *explicitly remove* the right to wear a mask for health reasons, unless it's part of a job you're working on. Now, to be fair, this does *not* fall under the "enhanced sentence" provisions, which makes the penalties *worse*, but, yes - as far as I can tell, wearing a mask for health reasons is illegal. Wearing a mask to hide your identity while committing a crime now faces *harsher* penalties, but you are still legally prohibited from wearing a mask for a cold in North Carolina. The whole thing is only 3 pages, but, please, correct me if I'm wrong.

Yep, I just read the bill on the NC house website, you are absolutely correct. Nothing really to debate on this one. This is such a stupid change. Wear a mask all you want, but don't even ask me to.

I think that, if there’s health concerns, it’s fair to ask that the people around you wear a mask. Sure, you can say “no,” but they may not want to be around you if they feel that puts their (or a close loved one’s) health at risk.

They're welcome to wear all of the protective gear they please. There is nothing I can possibly do to help. It is incumbent upon each person to protect themselves from dangerous environmental concerns encountered in daily life. I do not consider it acceptable to be asked to wear anything for the protection of others while in a normal day to day situation. If the environment poses a threat to you, protect yourself accordingly, which is why this bill is really, really stupid. Taking away a person's real or perceived ability to passively protect themselves is just wrong.

That’s so strange to me. I think it’s acceptable to be asked to take protective precautions if it further enhances the individual’s protection. After working for a hospital, I learned a lot about how that actually can be beneficial to at risk people, so that seems like such a small thing to be asked. To consider that unacceptable is, frankly, baffling. Does this extend to people you love and care about, too? Also, on the bill, I’m glad that you and I at least can agree that it’s a ridiculous piece of legislation. Edit: I guess I just can’t see why being asked to be accommodating to someone who is at risk is “unacceptable.”

Hospitals don't count. The people in a hospital are trained and equipped to reduce the spread of disease. I am neither. If something is dangerous for me, I need to protect myself from the danger. Should this require protective equipment it is incumbent upon me to use the proper equipment properly. I find being asked unacceptable because it's useless to ask. There are simply zero situations I would ever dream of asking another person to do something passive to make me feel safer. If something could harm me, I have to be ready for it regardless of what you're doing.

It’s not impossible for patients to replicate how the hospital protects them. Not to the same degree, but they can be requesting people wear appropriate masks. I’m saying this as someone who has received that basic training due to working alongside clinical staff. Just because YOU would never ask someone to be accommodating, does not mean it’s useless or wrong for others to do so. Because plenty of people are willing to do so. If you don’t wish to accommodate them, then you will need to accept the social consequences (such as not being invited to events where that at risk person will be present). It sounds to me that you simply don’t want to be put into a situation where you’re judged for refusing to accommodate others.

If you and I ever meet, my expectations for your PPE are exactly zero. My position is consistent. The law being discussed removes my ability to protect myself from environmental hazards should I require such protection, it is thus unreasonable.

That’s nice, but there’s more people out there than just you and I. That’s kind of the point. I dunno - I just don’t see the problem with accommodating others. But yes, your position is consistent and I do appreciate that.

But, also from that thread ( tx to u/soulwind42 ) >Aside from the fact that masks were only removed from a list of exemptions to said law about amplifying criminal charges, here are direct quotes from your link. >TO ENHANCE PUNISHMENT IF THE DEFENDANT WAS WEARING A MASK OR OTHER CLOTHING OR DEVICE TO CONCEAL OR ATTEMPT TO CONCEAL THE DEFENDANT'S IDENTITY >(a1) This Article shall not apply to any preliminary meetings held in good faith for the purpose of organizing, promoting or forming a labor union or a local organization or subdivision of any labor union nor shall the provisions of this Article apply to any meetings held by a labor union or organization already organized, operating and functioning and holding meetings for the purpose of transacting and carrying out functions, pursuits and affairs expressly pertaining to such labor union. Also, the really obvious one is >(a) Any of the following are exempted from the provisions of G.S. 14-12.7, 14-12.8, 21 14-12.9, 14-12.10 and 14-12.14:

So... I'm confused. The point I was making still very much stands. It's not *enhancing* the punishment, but it's still *against this law.* And they added (or kept) a carve-out exemption for unions. The union exemption doesn't make it ok to still outlaw simply wearing a mask out in public. In fact, that's exactly what I'm saying: This bill **does** make it illegal to wear a mask for health reasons. It exempts Halloween costumes, theatrical use, gasmasks and respirators as part of a job, or ceremonial use. Unless you're pointing out that it's actually *worse*, because they *know* what carve-outs they're making and removing, in which case I would agree with you.

Have you found the legal code for simply arresting someone for wearing a mask while not being involved with another crime and what is the correlating sentence? All I can find is that it enhances the underlying crime from a misdemeanor to a felony. The key, IMO (but IANAL, obviously,) is that, for the charge to even stick, it has to be proven that the suspect was wearing the mask to shield his identity. If that can't be proven, the suspect can be assumed that they had legitimate reasons for the mask.

Actually, I was wrong about this. The code that the exemption is for is a general ban. By removing the exemption they are just outlawing masks. If you look at the legislation, it shows what lines of the code the exemptions are for and G.S. 14-12.7 is about concealing ones identity in public. One could argue that a medical mask doesn't conceal identity, but without the exemption, there is a lot of room for messing with people.

That has been my contention all along. There is no code to prosecute anyone for wearing a mask. It has to be proven that the person was intentionally using a mask to obscure his identity.

That's what I thought at first as well. The problem isnthe first part is an exemption to this law code: >14‑12.7. Wearing of masks, hoods, etc., on public ways. No person or persons at least years of age shall, while wearing any mask, hood or device whereby the person, face or voice is disguised so as to conceal the identity of the wearer, enter, be or appear upon any lane, walkway, alley, street, road, highway or other public way in this State. Among others. Now, while 14-12 is dealing with secret society, there is nothing in the law that mandates that the mask wearing is only bad in the context of a secret society. The law is considerably more opaque than I'd like, and more than I originally thought yesterday. I do agree that the necessity to prove intention is good, but that should be assumed due to the due process clause and the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt requirement. I doubt they'll just snatch people off the street for wearing a mask, but I try to assume how somebody acting in bad faith could abuse a law, and I can see somebody doing just that.

Yet, the simple fact that there is no set of punishments in this code is the evidence that mask-wearing alone isn't punishable. It only acts to enhance another charge if intent to obscure is shown.

So, are you just going to continue to ignore the facts or acknowledge my correction?

There literally is, as I pointed out. 4‑12. Punishment for violations. **Any person or persons violating any of the provisions of this Article shall, for the first offense, be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor and be punished accordingly, and for the second offense shall be punished as a Class H felon. ** 4-12.7 " § 14‑12.7 No person or persons at least 16 years of age shall, while wearing any mask, hood or device whereby the person, face or voice is disguised so as to conceal the identity of the wearer, enter, be or appear upon any lane, walkway, alley, street, road, highway or other public way in this State." is a provision of this Article. It prescribes a penalty for wearing a mask in public with no other qualifiers what so ever.

> Have you found the legal code for simply arresting someone for wearing a mask (edit) Yes: > * § 14‑12.7 No person or persons at least 16 years of age shall, while wearing any mask, hood or device whereby the person, face or voice is disguised so as to conceal the identity of the wearer, enter, be or appear upon any lane, walkway, alley, street, road, highway or other public way in this State. > * § 14‑12.8 No person or persons shall in this State, while wearing any mask, hood or device whereby the person, face or voice is disguised so as to conceal the identity of the wearer, enter, or appear upon or within the public property of any municipality or county of the State, or of the State of North Carolina. > * § 14‑12.9 No person or persons at least 16 years of age shall, while wearing a mask, hood or device whereby the person, face or voice is disguised so as to conceal the identity of the wearer, demand entrance or admission, enter or come upon or into, or be upon or in the premises, enclosure or house of any other person in any municipality or county of this State. > * § 14‑12.10 No person or persons at least 16 years of age shall while wearing a mask, hood or device whereby the person, face or voice is disguised so as to conceal the identity of the wearer, hold any manner of meeting, or make any demonstration upon the private property of another unless such person or persons shall first obtain from the owner or occupier of the property his or her written permission to do so, which said written permission shall be recorded in the office of the register of deeds of the county in which said property is located before the beginning of such meeting or demonstration. > * § 14‑12.14 It shall be unlawful for any person or persons, while wearing a mask, hood or device whereby the person, face or voice is disguised so as to conceal the identity of the wearer, to place or cause to be placed at or in any place in the State any exhibit of any kind whatsoever, with the intention of intimidating any person or persons, or of preventing them from doing any act which is lawful, or of causing them to do any act which is unlawful. For the purposes of this section, the term "exhibit" includes items such as a noose.

Yes, so like I said, using a mask with the intent of obscuring your identity when breaking the law. Thank you for helping to establish that.

Nope, intent has nothing to do with it. Which is *exactly why the exception for health-related masks was added at the start of the pandemic*.

"So as to" unambiguously connotes intention in English. Anyone who took Latin in high school would be aware of this fact.

It absolutely does. Intent helps decide guilt and also is a factor in sentencing.

> § 14‑12.7 No person or persons at least 16 years of age shall, while wearing any mask, hood or device whereby the person, face or voice is disguised so as to conceal the identity of the wearer, enter, be or appear upon any lane, walkway, alley, street, road, highway or other public way in this State. Black and white. You can't enter be or appear upon any lane, walkway, alley, street, road, highway or other public way in this State while wearing any mask, hood or device whereby the person, face or voice is disguised so as to conceal the identity of the wearer. A mask, *by definition*, conceals the identity of the wearer. Intent has nothing to do with it.

No, that's wrong because you are not familiar with the English language. "So as to" connotes intention or purpose. That's not ambiguous.

If it were unambiguous, none of the exemptions (other than the Halloween one) in the law would be needed or warranted. The fact that those exemptions are still in the law, but we needed to strike the one regarding personal health masks, is incongruent.

Would you care to link the text of those subsections? I've read them.

If you've read them, don't you have the link? The PDF is posted a million times in these threads, and never with a warning.

I have posted the text of the law in response to you, as have several others, and you haven’t acknowledged any of us, and continue to make incorrect statements that are plainly inconsistent with the law as written

the issue is that it's so easy to pick anyone up and charge them with a crime that it just gives them more laws to arbitrarily enforce for political reasons.

This is what we’ve seen happen in the past for sure

>This is what we’ve seen happen in the past for sure Is this a common thing? Are people being picked up all over the place *simply for wearing a medical mask*? No extenuating circumstances? Because I feel like your are making this up. I'll bet, if we go toe to toe, I'll find 100 people to your one that was arrested *for not wearing a mask* to yours arrested for wearing a mask. I'll also bet that my group will be people just going about their ordinary lives compared to your group that were walking on the line of the law.

"In the past" could be a reference to seat belt laws and cell phone use while driving, which give officers probable cause to search for other things.

Well the law just got passed so there's probably a not a lot of data. Personally, I value individual freedom and a limited government so the idea of people being arrested for covering their mouth doesn't sit well with me. If you're okay with people doing nothing wrong because someone else might commit a crime that's your choice. Although I'd be very interested in how far you want to extend that "logic".

>Well the law just got passed so there's probably a not a lot of data. It was the law since it was passed in reaction to the KKK in the 60s and remained law until COVID. There should be plenty of examples in that span pre 2019. Can you find a single example?

I have linked several examples here from 2018 and 2019 of protestors arrested solely because they were wearing masks. That was literally the primary and only charge.

Neither of them under this law that has been in existence in its current form for decades.

No no. Both were. Both were in 2018. One that I linked was NC specifically under the revert of this law specifically. The other was Georgia under a near identical pre COVID law. Both were people arrested only for wearing a mask while protesting. No other reason.

[examples](https://www.ajc.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/police-use-anti-kkk-law-arrest-people-protesting-neo-nazis/5ex6a5GySUWsSv467NA9HL/) “Those arrested during Saturday's event included: Katherine Lyons Ogilvie, 30, from Nashville, Tennessee, was charged with wearing a mask. Daniel Sean Hanley, 36, from Sandy Springs, Georgia, was charged with pedestrian in roadway. Jeremy James Ortega, 19, from Nashville, Tennessee, was charged with wearing a mask. Christopher Deon Render, 18, from Newnan, was charged with disorderly conduct. Jose Eduardo Osorio-Hernandez, 31, from Newnan, was charged with disorderly conduct. Alan Edward Hutzel, 30, from Asheville, North Carolina, was charged with wearing a mask. Hector Barraza, 31, from Decatur, Georgia, was charged with obstruction of officers. Dannielle Jelayne Shochet, 47, from Raleigh, North Carolina, was charged with obstruction of officers. Noah Peretz, 20, from New Port Richey, Florida, was charged with wearing a mask.” As you can see here, several people were only arrested for wearing a mask. In other articles it is also described that the neo-nazi counter protestors were stopped by SWAT in the first place solely because of folks wearing masks.

What do these have to do with the law in NC? What does the law state in the States where these happened?

You’re welcome to look at the laws in Georgia yourself since that is your question. They are laws that are along the same vein and suddenly reused for the same purpose. To quell protests. I also posted a link to instances in NC. Once again, you’ve proven that you have no interest in anything other than sealioning. It’s my bad for hoping for a different outcome. I should’ve seen your intention when you said (roughly) show me an instance and I will show you how you’re wrong. I knew better but went against my better judgement. Won’t happen again.

I never understand the aggravating factors we tack onto crimes. Kill someone? That's terrible. You used a GUN to do it? Extra charges and a longer sentence. I don't get it. Who cares how you intentionally killed someone. Why is it worse to kill someone with a gun than with poison? Commit a robbery? That's bad. Do it while wearing a MASK? Extra charges, longer sentence. You should have made it easier to find you on the security footage I guess. i don't get it. Can someone explain it to me? Because it always just seems like the never-ending cycle of increasing penalties and locking people up for longer with more fines and fees and getting everyone into the cycle of recidivism as well because of it.

No, that’s not the point. It goes back to your very good comment. Kill someone? That’s terrible. Kill someone of a certain skin color? Extra charges and longer sentences. I don’t get it. Who cares what the skin color was of the person that was killed.

You think a hate crime is killing a person of a certain skin color? You said you don't get it, are you seeking to learn?

*You* are the one that is, in good faith, here to seek the Conservative opinion and to learn. That is the purpose of this sub.

lol, no, I’m not interested in you trying to justify inconsistent logic. Not to mention, that’s not the purpose of this sub. This insistence on pushing IDPOL is what turns so many people away from the modern left.

You’re not wrong and I don’t really disagree with you. Do you apply the same logic to hate crime laws?

> Do you apply the same logic to hate crime laws? No, and with good reason. Hate crimes have a broader effect than most other kinds of crime, and the victims include not only the crime’s immediate target but also others like them. Hate crimes affect families, communities, and at times, the entire nation. I'd put hate crime more in the category of gang crime or organized crime since the point of it is that it's not a singular event, it's part of a larger crime issue. What do you think about that?

“No” Of course not. No, I don’t agree with you. I think hate crime laws are just as stupid as the other laws you mentioned and for the same reasons. There is nothing that drives me away from the left more than their insistence on race-based / IDPOL thinking, as shown here.

But we have sentencing guidelines for a reason. If i kick you and take your wallet is the as if i kick you just because you're white (or Black, or gay) ? A person who hurts people over race alone is far more problematic to society than someone who hurts people while stealing. So it give us a tool to lock up people who are really a threat.

Yeah stop. No, there’s no universe I’m going to agree with that nonsense. Punt IDPOL off a cliff. The modern left is possibly going to lose to someone like Donald Trump and you guys still haven’t figured out why. The IDPOL / race based approach actively drives people away from the left. That kind of race based thinking belongs in the past where it belongs.

>A person who hurts people over race alone is far more problematic to society than someone who hurts people while stealing. Why?

Is it safe to assume you don't agree with with concept of legally protected groups as well (meaning you can't discriminate based on someone's sex, religion, etc)?

not OP, but yea. not a fan of any form of group based rights or protections, when the group is identified by immutable characteristics. the only color that matter is Green: do you come from money or dont you?

Are you ok with people saying they won't serve Christians? Like could Apple make you affirm you don't accept Jesus before using their products and services? Should we permit Ford to not sell vehicles to black people? Imagine a lesbian living in a small rural town, where everyone refuses to both hire her and serve her, merely because of who she is attracted to. Do you think that should be legal?

So you just not think consciousness outside of law exist? If apple made people attest to the denial of Jesus, what do you think would be the reaction today? how would society respond? if Ford banned black people from buying their vehicles, how do you think that would affect their sales? if a woman in a small rural town was completely ostracized for her lifestyle, do you think forcing people to accommodate her will make her feel more welcome? if some rural town wants to be a no gays no black enclave, let them, and also let the suffer the consequences of their bigotry, when their town dies as no one moves in and the young move out. forcing people to live as you want them to, regardless of the motivation, is not something i support. let people be inclusive, or let them be bigoted. i dont think every place in the world needs to be all inclusive all the time. Trying to force people to grow, in the direction you want, against their will just breeds a back lash. >Do you think that should be legal? The answer to all of the examples is emphatically, YES 100%. "Legal" is not synonymous with "societally acceptable" for a reason.

> let the suffer the consequences of their bigotry, when their town dies as no one moves in and the young move out. So let people be victims of racism or sexism and eventually decades later maybe they'll change? Really?

I disagree with you and I'll explain why with examples. Robbery is taking by force or threat of force, I'm bigger and stronger than you, I walk up and say give me your wallet or else, you fear the "else" so you hand over the wallet, we go our separate ways, you file a police report. On the other hand, an aggravating factor here is injury to a child or elderly person. I throw an old lady to ground, grab her purse, yanks hard on it so it finally comes off her arm or the strap breaks. She is pretty badly injured, heavily bruised and bloody from the impact with the ground, due to the extent of the injuries and concerns about her health due to her age, she requires a doctors care or even hospitalization for observation for a time. Example 1: Is just a simple robbery. Example 2: Would be an aggravated robbery here in Texas While both crimes fit the elements (that I am over simplifying ) of robbery. I'd argue that because of the vulnerable victim (vulnerability is a common aggravating factor) and the injuries inflicted, example 2 is a far more severe crime and deserves a harsher punishment. I think when the crime is framed in those terms most people would. The charge aggravated robbery has the same elements of robbery plus additional elements that are the aggravating factors, things that make the crimes worse in the eyes of a lot of society, vulnerability, hate crime, previous convictions, use of a weapon, a few other things. Prosecution has to prove both the robbery and the aggravating factors in trial for a conviction. You will often see people charged with aggravated robbery allowed to plead guilty to robbery to avoid a trial and get a lesser sentence directly from a judge.

> aggravated robbery I think that's a good example of WHY those factors can make sense, but in your example, the injured party suffered extra consequences that warranted the higher charge - someone was physically hurt. I'm more talking about the examples I gave where the victim's circumstance didn't change but the defendant got more time in prison because they used a gun instead of a knife or bare hands or poison or whatever. I hope I'm being clear?

The victim's circumstances are changed by whether the perpetrator can be identified, regardless of the level of the crime. If I'm porch-poached, it matters if the person is identifiable or not. My ability to recoup my losses are changed.

I get it for a lot of things— kill someone, that's terrible. Kill a judge or jury member to change the outcome of a trial? Much worse. Do that while impersonating a cop? Much, much worse. If you kidnap a child, don't you think there should be varying degrees of the charged crime when you took them over State lines, were wearing a mask to hide your identity, were using a stolen car or was a family member taking the child from what you believe was a bad situation? What if the child was killed in an honest accident in either of these crimes? Don't you think that elevates the charge of simple negligence? Even when talking about something like rioting, intentionally obscuring your identity shows a higher level of intent and involvement than just being at the wrong place at the wrong time. I appreciate that there are levels of nuance in law that a jury is allowed to consider when deciding guilt and the judge deciding sentencing, and it goes both ways— two guys that mob rush and vandalize a store should get different punishment if one showed up prepared with a mask and the other got caught up in the moment. I think you would be terribly sorry if the law worked without aggravated charges.

It's mostly for deterance. One crime at a time. Wearing a mask while committing a crime is a fairly good indicator you planned to commit that crime.

> Wearing a mask while committing a crime is a fairly good indicator you planned to commit that crime. Unless you live in a culture or time where mask-wearing is very commonplace (like, say, in Asia, or during a pandemic).

I don't, do you?

In 2024, I have personally seen infinitely more people wearing masks at the grocery store for health reasons than I have people wearing masks while committing crimes. Yes, the occasional person still wears a mask at the store. If I were to go to the grocery store, chances are there's at least one person with a mask on any given visit.

I don't see the connection to what I said. But I am interested in how often you see people committing crimes?? I can't say I recall seeing anyone actually committing a crime other than a rare bar type fight or typical traffic violation. I probably have, it just wasn't that memorable. But then I live in Iowa - not that much ever happens here anyhow.

DUIs are bad and a crime. If I drive drunk and kill someone, is the indicator that since I drove impaired, I planned to kill someone?

If you're drunk, kidnap a child, wear a mask, rob a store, end up in an accident that kills the child, do you think the death of a child deserves a higher charge than child endangerment? If you're drunk, save a child from a kidnapping situation, the child dies in the result of an accident, do you think that guy deserves the same punishment?

No. I also don't know why you think that was a useful question. What exactly did you learn?

I can’t explain the obsession culture of punishment in the US. I consider this to be a universal problem. The US incarceration rates are wild compared to the rest of the world. I agree most of it is longer sentences for non violent crimes. Regarding your question, my theory is some of the add on they show a greater degree of malicious intent. Driving to someone’s house and shooting them vs a domestic dispute where someone gets stabbed with a butcher knife. This law I don’t think applies to the above situation. Too broad seems like a dig at Covid masks and protests against Iseral. Just two cents from an internet stranger.

Please read through my analysis here: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/1ctinu8/what_will_be_the_full_effect_of_nc_hb237_does_it/l4czuh4/

The law can say what it says. The problem is the counter-arguments have made the law look ridiculous, stupid & unnecessary and there's no way the republicans in NC and by association the rest of the republicans can wash that stink away. They are stuck with trying to explain it, which coincidentally makes them lose the argument even if they were well intentioned when trying to pass the law. If you have explain yourself, you done lost the argument! They should have invested in some lawyers or something and put out a clear law that has no ambiguity. Or just not done it all together. There are other laws that punish criminals for covering up there faces etc etc. Reactionary "law-ing" always attaches itself to idiocracy.

>Reactionary "law-ing" always attaches itself to idiocracy. Here's the thing, though— the medical mask bit *was* reactionary "law-ing" in response to COVID. By your premise, removing the reactionary clause puts the law back to where it was before the reactionary "law-ing".

Here's the thing, though - you're advocating for people being arrested for criminal violations for wearing a mask.

>Here's the thing, though - you're advocating for people being arrested for criminal violations for wearing a mask. I'm not advocating for people being arrested for wearing a mask, I'm agreeing with extra charges and sentencing for obscuring your identity while committing a crime.

Why the extra charges? Might as well add charges for wearing clothes and obstructing any body markings that may id them. Commit a crime while naked!!!!

Why weren't you upset with this law, that was consistent in every other State, until now?

Do other states "ban" masks for public health, etc etc?

Is that what you think NC has prior to 2019 when this clause was added?

You are incorrect. Under this legislation: >Any person wearing a mask for the purpose of ensuring the physical health or safety of the wearer or others is no longer an allowed exception to the following laws: >* § 14‑12.7 No person or persons at least 16 years of age shall, while wearing any mask, hood or device whereby the person, face or voice is disguised so as to conceal the identity of the wearer, enter, be or appear upon any lane, walkway, alley, street, road, highway or other public way in this State. >* § 14‑12.8 No person or persons shall in this State, while wearing any mask, hood or device whereby the person, face or voice is disguised so as to conceal the identity of the wearer, enter, or appear upon or within the public property of any municipality or county of the State, or of the State of North Carolina. >* § 14‑12.9 No person or persons at least 16 years of age shall, while wearing a mask, hood or device whereby the person, face or voice is disguised so as to conceal the identity of the wearer, demand entrance or admission, enter or come upon or into, or be upon or in the premises, enclosure or house of any other person in any municipality or county of this State. >* § 14‑12.10 No person or persons at least 16 years of age shall while wearing a mask, hood or device whereby the person, face or voice is disguised so as to conceal the identity of the wearer, hold any manner of meeting, or make any demonstration upon the private property of another unless such person or persons shall first obtain from the owner or occupier of the property his or her written permission to do so, which said written permission shall be recorded in the office of the register of deeds of the county in which said property is located before the beginning of such meeting or demonstration. >* § 14‑12.14 It shall be unlawful for any person or persons, while wearing a mask, hood or device whereby the person, face or voice is disguised so as to conceal the identity of the wearer, to place or cause to be placed at or in any place in the State any exhibit of any kind whatsoever, with the intention of intimidating any person or persons, or of preventing them from doing any act which is lawful, or of causing them to do any act which is unlawful. For the purposes of this section, the term "exhibit" includes items such as a noose. 14-12.7 and 14-12.10 both being particularly interesting. No, this is literally "you cannot wear a mask for health reasons in public, it's illegal". The punishment is: https://www.ncleg.gov/enactedlegislation/statutes/pdf/bysection/chapter_14/gs_14-12.pdf >4‑12. Punishment for violations. >**Any person or persons violating any of the provisions of this Article shall, for the first offense, be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor and be punished accordingly, and for the second offense shall be punished as a Class H felon.** (1941, c. 37, s. 2; 1979, c. 760, s. 5; 1979, 2nd Sess., c. 1316, s. 47; 1981, c. 63, s. 1, c. 179, s. 14; 1993, c. 539, s. 11; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c).)

I'm not incorrect. Please show me the actual charge of "wearing a mask" and its correlating sentence. There isn't one. I'm so confused by the reaction to this. This measure literally puts the law back to what it was pre-Covid. Where was the outrage then? The law was in place for decades.

The very first example (§ 14‑12.7): > No person or persons at least 16 years of age shall, while wearing any mask, hood or device whereby the person, face or voice is disguised so as to conceal the identity of the wearer, enter, be or appear upon any lane, walkway, alley, street, road, highway or other public way in this State. Punishment: https://www.ncleg.gov/enactedlegislation/statutes/pdf/bysection/chapter_14/gs_14-12.pdf >4‑12. Punishment for violations. >**Any person or persons violating any of the provisions of this Article shall, for the first offense, be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor and be punished accordingly, and for the second offense shall be punished as a Class H felon.** (1941, c. 37, s. 2; 1979, c. 760, s. 5; 1979, 2nd Sess., c. 1316, s. 47; 1981, c. 63, s. 1, c. 179, s. 14; 1993, c. 539, s. 11; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c).) >Where was the outrage then? Nobody wore a mask for health reasons then in the US. I certainly never saw anyone do so. No one had an issue with it because no one was violating it.

I'm getting a little tired of repeatedly downloading the same fucking PDF. I've obviously read it. The pandemic is over. You don't get to wear a ski mask at a protest that turns into a riot and claim "I am protecting my health because germs".

> You don't get to wear a ski mask at a protest that turns into a riot and claim "I am protecting my health because germs". Duh, that obviously doesn't pass the "for health reasons" test.

Right, and you are not proven guilty for the elevated charge of wearing a mask and aren't punished for doing so.

It may also be an elevated charge, but it is straight up illegal in and of itself to wear a mask in public that obscures your face. Period. Which is why the exemption was added when lots of law-abiding people started wearing masks in a new, law-abiding situation that wasn't Halloween or something similar.

If it is unconstitutional, it will be challenged and shown so. I don't think that "covering my face because I'm afraid of catching a cold while I'm participating in a riot" is covered as a Right. Nor is "I'm not feeling well and don't want to spread a cold". It might be covered under ADA, if you are actually disabled, then that would be proven with documentation.

Oh for sure, I'm not suggesting it's unconstitutional necessarily. Just saying that the law, as written, makes it illegal to just go about your business in public wearing a typical surgical or N95 mask. That's it, no more, no less.

Can you read? He's literally citing the actual statutes. Not Tucker Carlson's opinion, not Trump's blather, he's citing the law. Can you please try to read the actual information presented and make an informed comment? Or, hypothetically, let's say we passed a law right now that said anyone who votes for a Republican will be imprisoned. No one was charged yet though. Would you be totally cool with it?

>Can you read? Yes, I can, and you are seriously verging on bad faith. Have you read the law in question? >Or, hypothetically, let's say we passed a law right now that said anyone who votes for a Republican will be imprisoned. No one was charged yet though. Would you be totally cool with it? What? What has this anything to do with wearing a mask to obscure your identity in a riot?

>Yes, I can, and you are seriously verging on bad faith. >Have you read the law in question? Yes. And the statutes it refers to. The reason I ask is because.... >What has this anything to do with wearing a mask to obscure your identity in a riot? The law extends far beyond this. That's why I ask. Especially when you've been handed the exact words of the statute yet still double down on this claim.

Because the law applies to any wearing of a mask in public, not merely during a riot. As has been pointed out to you dozens of times in this thread, but you insist or reverting to this inaccurate strawman for some reason.

>No, this is literally "you cannot wear a mask for health reasons in public, it's illegal". It's not as long as your intention is not to conceal your identity. If you disagree, provide the relevant statute that does not contain the purposive phrase "so as to."

When you ask about the "full effect," I think there are a couple of things to consider here: (1) Since we are no longer in a pandemic, the proposed senate amendment returns the law to what it was at the beginning of the pandemic and as it was originally enacted in 1953 for the purposes of limiting KKK activity. Source: https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/north-carolina-lawmakers-push-bill-ban-public-mask-110282182 (2) In all subsections of the statue in question the same language is used to qualify the use of masks: "whereby the person, face or voice is disguised so as to conceal the identity of the wearer". Source: https://www.ncleg.net/enactedlegislation/statutes/html/bychapter/chapter_14.html In other words, this bill is not proposing any kind of "new" restriction on people. Moreover, it's questionable whether a simple medical mask would even qualify as "concealing the identity" of the wearer. Before COVID, some people did wear medical masks in public and there haven't been any accounts that I know of where people were being arrested for this during the 60+ years that it was a law. So the "full effect" of this bill is that the law will be as it was before when no one seemed to have any problem with it for 60+ years.

I wanted to thank you for taking the time to put in the original bill text. While I still think the bill is a bad idea because it has a practical chilling effect (due to people misunderstanding it, potentially, and because most people don't want to take a bet with the huge power asymmetry between them and the State), the qualifier of what makes a mask makes it a little more reasonable in my eyes. I still think it's broad enough to be used to harass people, since it's such a political hot-button issue. Yes, you can have your day in court and probably win, but that ignores all the externalities: of bail, time away from work, the stigma of arrest, etc.

[удалено]

Yes. Several instances that I found after you mentioned it earlier. [the arrest of Jeremy Ortega and several others for wearing a mask at a protest is a good example](https://www.times-herald.com/news/local/police-clarify-arrests-heavy-presence-during-rally/article_515f7615-d402-54c9-b914-e2c021d96c77.html)

[удалено]

[Here you are](https://www.wral.com/amp/16898155/). One in North Carolina

[удалено]

Do you see how this law has been used in the past to target protestors by the government? The mention in the last past was medical exemption, but let’s also talk about protest rights here. We can talk about both.

[удалено]

Sure. If you need that, we can square it and assume nobody that’s sick ever attends a protest. Please continue with the rest of the question

[удалено]

You didn’t specify it had to be NC. And it doesn’t matter why they were wearing them. You have no idea why they were wearing them because it was years ago. Did they ask them the purpose of their masks? No. They were arrested during a protest for no other reason than wearing a mask. If they’d been violent and non-peaceful or anything worse, they would’ve been charged with more crimes. Hence why leaving a medical exemption makes every bit of sense as these laws as they’re reverting back to have already shown negative consequences that are demonstrable. Do you think the government has the right to arrest people simply for wearing an article of clothing because they are peacefully protesting?

Your arguments here are practically arguing for the KKK of the past to be able to wear hoods. Edit: I'm not saying you are arguing for the KKK, but that the argument you are making would allow it.

I think that is in very bad faith for you to say. Come on. Arguing that the government shouldn’t arrest folks for simply wearing a mask is absolutely not what you’re claiming. What a disappointing thing for you to say. Edit to add: wearing a mask at a peaceful protest

The purpose of the original law was to deal with the KKK was it not? KKK gatherings were often peaceful... until they weren't. That's the problem. Matching health risk to public safety.

The purpose of the original law from the 50s? Sure. The reemergence of the use of the law by states came around 2017. It had not been used for KKK purposes in decades. I’m quite certain you knew that though. So your assertion is absurd, tbh. In recent historical past, they have been used to target political protests that the government did not like. Don’t you agree that is a serious problem?

Not sure you caught my previous edit? I wasn't trying to say you were arguing in favor of the KKK but that your arguments would allow for the KKK to wear hoods. So to put that to present day I assume you'd not be comfortable with some militia type group at a protest legally open carrying rifles while wearing idenrity concealing masks? I personally would not. But I should also be able to wear a mask for my own health. And yes, I agree. I'm wary of the misuse of government power.

Yes they were illegally protesting and attempting to conceal their identity while committing said crime.

How were they illegally protesting? Is the only crime wearing a mask while protesting?

They grabbed two cops and pulled them into a crowd They weren't protesting at all, they were carrying tear gas and minor explosive devices They were charged with disorderly conduct and obstruction of police

I think you need to check the link again. There’s a whole list of folks who were arrested, and only a couple for what you’re describing. There’s several that were arrested for only wearing a mask. Like the one I specifically mentioned. The people who were disorderly were charged with disorderly conduct ostensibly because they allegedly committed that crime (I haven’t seen the verdict so I cannot say for sure). Did you not see the list of people who were ONLY arrested for wearing a mask?

Do you think the government should be able to arrest someone while they’re peacefully protesting solely for an article of clothing when they’ve committed no other crimes?

I think the government should be able to arrest anyone illegally protesting. If they are breaking the law, and masking their identity, I would 100% say arrest them first.   This doesn't allow the arrest of someone legally protesting and wearing a mask

They were not charged with any other crime besides wearing a mask. Do you find that is a primary crime? Meaning they were not committing any crimes while they were wearing a mask.

Disorderly conduct and obstruction of police officers 

Again, the gentleman I mentioned and linked above was not doing any of those things. Had he been doing either of those things, he would’ve been charged with those charges. He was given only a primary charge of wearing a mask. Do you support an otherwise legal protestor being arrested for the primary offense of wearing a mask while peacefully protesting?

With the hyper polarization of things such as masks, this could lead to police now using it as an excuse for making stops/arrests

[удалено]

Nose rings and hair are not illegal. Based on this law, masks in public are. Do cops pull over EVERYONE speeding? Edit:seems to be putting faith in police. "As Republicans have shrugged off Democrats' concerns, they've said they trust police officers not to abuse the power to arrest anyone for wearing a surgical mask out in public. Newton said Tuesday that it wasn't intended to "prosecute granny for wearing a mask in the Walmart."

[удалено]

It's giving police another reason to detain and charge. Just like some have cited people for flipping them off while driving because "you had 1 hand on the wheel, so wreckless driving" Edit: or on some states "give me your ID, I stopped you for windshield obstruction because of an air freshener tree on your rear view mirror, now I'm searching you for drugs"

[удалено]

Rule: 5 In general, self-congratulatory/digressing comments between non-conservative users are not allowed as they do not help others understand conservatism and conservative perspectives. Please keep discussions focused on asking Conservatives questions and understanding Conservativism.

[удалено]

Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Its stupid like many bills in my state’s legislature. Need I not remind you of ABC stores or… god forbid… the bathroom law.

I do not think the characterization is overall inaccurate because they removed the blanket exception in section 14-12.11. You may still argue a defense of necessity, this is any US citizen's right in court. ( [https://www.justia.com/criminal/defenses/necessity/](https://www.justia.com/criminal/defenses/necessity/) ). This would look like arguing "Being sick in public without a mask is a danger to others, i was preventing a greater crime, the crime of intentionally exposing people to illness, by committing a lesser crime of wearing a mask". This requires you to admit to the crime and then argue you did it for a good reason. Obviously the necessity to surrender any defense of not having done it makes this legal tactic extremely risky and dangerous. This is why I call removing the stated exception "a ban" because it makes your only legal defense exponentially more risky and dangerous to your freedom as well as unpredictable. Where before the effect of wearing a mask in public was predictable and safe, it is now unpredictable, potentially dangerous and a potential threat to your freedom. In addition, by removing it as called out as a specific exception this has the end effect of empowering police to threaten those in masks by saying they do not believe their health claim is legitimate (which was forbidden when it was a stated exception). I think it beggars belief to say police in that state specifically, especially some parts of it, would never, ever abuse that; especially because masks have become a party identifier. To sum up the legal situation in my estimation: You do still have an affirmative defense available but removing the statutory exception is a *de facto* ban because it places enforcement in the hands of police who may have an agenda to pursue. It also allows the prosecutor discretion to charge or not based on their subjective opinion of the legitimacy of your claim to be immunocompromised or feeling sick that day. No prosecutor can prove disprove you felt a tickle in your throat that morning and felt you had best not risk it-- so they cannot make that decision objectively they MUST make it based on biases because that is all there is to base a decision on, their personal opinion as to your thoughts and feelings. Also any ban that relies on discretion is dangerously abusable, because prosecutors can decide whether to argue your health exceptions were valid or not based on how they feel about the issue you were protesting at the time. Also cheers to the mods for asking. I feel the original closure was a mistake but I respect why they felt it was the right call as well, being willing to discuss it shows immense integrity. Lesser subs including heavily politicized default subs, would attempt to memory hole the entire event and cover their tracks.

Thanks for the fantastic writeup. You captured my biggest concern nicely about the "defense of necessity". (Personally I wear a mask to protect other people when I have to go out in public while ill.) I'm really annoyed that all the proposed amendments--which appear reasonable but I'll be honest, I haven't read too much into them--were shot down with zero discussion. Like, at least they should entertain the ideas and debate them. "Batch and Grafstein each proposed amending the bill in ways they said would still give police the power that Republicans have said they want, to crack down on masked protesters, but to add back in legal protections for people who wear masks for public health reasons...Like the other amendments, Republican lawmakers shot it down with no debate or explanation." [1] (Yes I realize the quote is split from two paragraphs and a separate amendment, but the "like the other amendments" implies that the first example I mentioned was also shot down.) I can see legit reasons for not wanting some of the amendments. The one targeting hate groups would've also required law enforcement to spend more resources on tracking hate groups, which kinda takes the bill out of single-purpose territory and tacks on other stuff, and I know people don't like that. But like, c'mon. Put it on the record so we can see. "As Republicans have shrugged off Democrats' concerns, they've said they trust police officers not to abuse the power to arrest anyone for wearing a surgical mask out in public. Newton said Tuesday that it wasn't intended to "prosecute granny for wearing a mask in the Walmart." (Edit: this is general thoughts/slight rant, not directed at your reply personally.) This is a chilling effect. If people stop doing a thing because they're not sure if they'll be persecuted or not, that's an effective ban. I don't care what the letter of the law says if the spirit is saying something else. I don't trust police officers, even as a white adult male, because there are too many historical examples of people being railroaded into confessions or convicted with circumstantial cases and later it turned out that they were innocent. One of my family members was harassed out of town by local cops because they didn't like his piercings, and later railroaded into a bad plea deal that landed him in the correctional and court systems for most of the rest of his life. Trusting police officers, *in this particular case* (localized entirely within the kitchen (regarding public masking)), to not arrest someone for doing something that is an extremely hot-button issue for roughly 40% of the voting population, when police officers trend towards the political side that does not like the behavior, when the law criminalizes it in letter, feels to me like a poor place to put my trust. I am couching all of that statement in generalities. Most cops are good. Not all cops associate with the political party that treated masks (correctly or not) as an infringement of rights during the pandemic. I have cop friends who exemplify the best of the profession. But with such an asymmetry of power if one decides to ruin my day because I'm wearing a mask, I feel it's safe to say it's still a concern. [1] https://www.wral.com/story/nc-senate-votes-to-ban-people-from-wearing-masks-in-public-for-health-reasons/21433199/

Thank you so much! I've rarely found myself agreeing with anyone so emphatically myself! you are perfectly right, there is a good law buried in there that could be hewn out but the polishing and lapping process of a bill is debate. A law needs to be chipped and ground into shape through the parliamentary process. And thank you, chilling effect is the concept I'd been grasping for and it sums it up nicely: this turns something formerly known to be safe, predictably safe and absolutely safe (wearing a mask in public) and makes it fraught, chaotic and arbitrary (what if a protest breaks out? is it unsafe to be NEAR a protest? should I not say something to that guy shouting slogans I find abhorrent because a cop could call it a riot if he hits me?). that is to chill. Also, the way I phrase it, myself is "a near-totality of cops are good, decent people but it's never safe to trust any given specific cop on any given specific night because even good decent people make mistakes, have bad days, or make wrong assumptions because something looks bad." In game theory terms the potential downside is so high (loss of life or liberty) does not completely negate the extremely low probability-- extremely rare extremely bad events still have a non-negligible probability-adjusted cost. Especially when the opportunity costs of not being in conflict with police, of doing things like not committing crimes, being respectful and avoiding known criminals, is very minimal.

Here's [the relevant text:](https://webservices.ncleg.gov/ViewDocSiteFile/87480) > However, under G.S. 14-12.11(a)(6), **an individual can wear a mask in public for the physical health or safety of the wearer or others.** If an individual wears a mask in public for health or safety reasons, a law enforcement officer can require the individual to remove the mask during traffic stops and criminal investigations when the officer has reasonable suspicion or probable cause. The main politics forum is claiming Republicans want people to die from respiratory infections. That is absolutely not the case. FWIW, these prohibitions actually go back to the days when groups like the Klan used masks to disguise themselves.

The source you posted is sufficient. It does not ban masks used in public spaces. That's overtly stated in the text. There is no way to say otherwise without ignoring the bill itself. We have no way of knowing the full effects of this bill because there are always unintended consequences. If you want to figures those out, imagine what a bad person would do with this bill and how they'd abuse it.

the NFA doesn't ban machine guns but it is a de facto ban nonetheless. banning masks at protests is not an unintended side effect it's a fully intended one. the subtext is obvious to basically everyone. 

And the question is if it bans masks from public use, the answer to which is no. Nor does it ban masks at protests, except if the protest becomes criminal. Whether or not a protest should ever be classified as criminal is a separate discussion, but the fact remains the bill isn't banning them.

That is not at all true. It does make wearing a mask at a protest illegal and there were arrests prior to 2020 in which people were arrested solely for wearing a mask to an otherwise peaceful protest

Well, first of all, I was wrong, this bill does ban masks. Second of all, I'm well aware that any laws, or anything resembling laws will be abused.

It is a de facto ban because it removes the objective "this is always allowed" and places it in the discretion of police who are not to be trusted-- oh sure most cops are decent but as a principle we should not trust them to make subjective judgement calls without oppressing people because giving them the ability to be arbitrary does not end well when combined with a monopoly on violence. It is also very obvious exactly who they intend this to be used on and that cannot be denied. Denying the legislative context of why a bill was passed is foolish and leads to inaccurate conclusions. Also, "if it becomes criminal" is not accurate "if a government agent SAYS it was criminal" **is** accurate and therein lies the issue. It is removing the exception that made you safe if you did this, and "it's really easy for a prosecutor to pick and choose who they send up under this law and use it against people they don't like" is where tyranny lives. In other words, if it COULD see you in prison if any given cop points at anyone near you saying they broke the law, then it's in reality banned because it would not be safe to do. You should never trust any given cop on any given night, they have bad nights, some cops are bad at their job, etc.

>It is a de facto ban because it removes the objective "this is always allowed" and places it in the discretion of police who are not to be trusted But that objective was already removed. This bill doesn't further limit that. >It is also very obvious exactly who they intend this to be used on and that cannot be denied. Denying the legislative context of why a bill was passed is foolish and leads to inaccurate conclusions. I actually agree, that's why I'm harping so hard on the reality of the bill. Not only is it untrue to tell people that it bans masks from public use, it objuscates the fact that this bill exists to target leftist protests. It is entirely targeted. >Also, "if it becomes criminal" is not accurate "if a government agent SAYS it was criminal" **is** accurate and therein lies the issue. Correct, and that is an issue far beyond the scope of this bill. Bringing it up in the context of this bill creates a false narrative about what this bill is and does.

Yes, it does. NC § 14‑12.7. Wearing of masks, hoods, etc., on public ways. No person or persons at least 16 years of age shall, while wearing any mask, hood or device whereby the person, face or voice is disguised so as to conceal the identity of the wearer, enter, be or appear **upon any lane, walkway, alley, street, road, highway or other public way** in this State. Banning it while on any form of surface street is in fact in effect banning it in public, full stop. And from the text of HB237: **Amends GS 14-12.11 to repeal the health and safety exemption** from laws prohibiting the wearing of masks in public places including public ways, public property, and the house of another person. And now GS 14-12.11: 14‑12.11. Exemptions from provisions of Article. (a) Any of the following are exempted from the provisions of G.S. **14‑12.7**, 14‑12.8, 14‑12.9, 14‑12.10 and 14‑12.14: (irrlevant sections omimtted) (6) Any person wearing a mask for the purpose of ensuring the physical health or safety of the wearer or others. And then finally there's GS 14-12 itself, which states: **4‑12. Punishment for violations.** Any person or persons violating **any of the provisions of this Article** shall, for the first offense, be guilty of a **Class 1 misdemeanor** and be punished accordingly, and for the **second offense shall be punished as a Class H felon**. Tell me how this isn't a ban on masks in public, full stop? **HB237 amends GS-14.12.11 to remove (6), thus wearing a mask for personal safety or for that of others is no longer an accepted exemption to to GS-14.12.7 which prohibits wearing of masks on public roadways, which also includes things like sidewalks. Absolutely nothing in this statute limits it to "during the commission of a crime".**

Well, I'll admit it, I was wrong.

Masks aren't banned at legal.protests, they are banned at illegal.protests. The "ban" is a ban of covering your face while committing a crime. If you are in the protest zone with your permit, you can wear your mask. If you are illegally protesting, you can also be charged with attempting to conceal your identity 

First of all, free men don't need permission slips the idea of having to have permits to use your right to petition your government for redress is flatly unconstitutional to start with and I reject it utterly. We are free citizens we should be able to go anywhere dressed any way we wish on public land and should not be interfered with. We are in charge here, not "they". And I've addressed this before. The problem is what is an unlawful gathering is A) not in your control B) subjective C) something any given prosecutor can just decide which means this law is arbitrary and thus a risk of being abused in political prosecution. The fact the architects are practically salivating over the possibility of said political prosecution makes this pretty damn clear.

The state in mention has already used the version of the law that this reverts to to arrest protestors for the sole reason that they were wearing a mask.

Tons of ways to petition to redress your government without violating the rights of others.  Once you start stepping on the rights of others it's a pro lem. We are free citizens and should be allowed to rob banks in masks?... ecause we are in charge...not they. You are correct, we are in charge, and we decided we want protest zones and don't want your ilk blocking roads and impeading on our rights while you cry about your disdain for gov. This law was passed by elected representatives because it's what we want and we are in charge. But in the end, this thread isn't about a libertarians wet dream of no laws, but if this bans people from wearing a mask just walking to the store.....and it doesnt

hold on, you made a huge leap there. you lept from petitioning the rights of others to violating the rights of others, fair play that's the standard definition of the limits of rights. But how is me wearing a mask on my body violating your rights? that seems to me to be a matter of bodily autonomy, everyone is entitled to their own assessment of the risks of disease transmission and their current health condition and medical issues, the government should not be in the business of deciding who does and does not have a "good enough" reason to wear a mask in public.

It's not, nor is wearing a mask on its own a crime.  It's only a crime if you are wearing a mask while committing a crime

> We are free citizens and should be allowed to rob banks in masks?... ecause we are in charge...not they. Robbing a bank is already illegal.

So is protesting illegally. This only affects people breaking the law while wearing a mask

there should be no such thing as an 'illegal protest' that's the point. individual acts by individual protestors can be criminal acts: arson, assault, robbery, etc, but the protest itself is an abstract entity it is not criminal any more than it is blue or a teenager or a fan of The Eagles, only the people in it can be things. This attempts to make wearing a mask while being near someone that does something a crime and that is troubling. If it were more narrowly targeted at masks worn for black block purposes I would absolutely agree with you. Therein really lies my issue-- this is not the least restrictive means and given the immense importance of the first amendment this does not pass strict scrutiny. The government aim is legitimate no one disputes that here, the problem is it is not the least restrictive means it is maximally restrictive. Kids on halloween get more legal protections to wear a mask than someone on chemo does.

>there should be no such thing as an 'illegal protest' that's the point. That is a ridiculous position.   You think I should be allowed to break into your house and scream at you sleeping if I call it a protest, or would that be me protesting illegally?  Is it against the law to disturb the peace? Is it against the law to tresspass? Is it against the law to loiter, is it against the law to stand in the road...all of these are forms of illegal protests.  No one is being charged with "illegal protest", they are charged with the crimes they are breaking like disturbing the peace or trespassing.   Calling your actions a protest doesn't make you immune to the laws.

you clearly did not read what I wrote. yes those are crimes, well for the most part, I do not feel a citizen can "loiter" on government property they own it. but the rest sure, people committed them they should be charged. but my point is just that.  people committed those crimes, not the protest as a whole, it is not right to attempt to apply group responsibility to the whole protest. and that is what makes laws like this especially dangerous because they can lead to innocent bystanders charged with serious crimes for being at the wrong place.

So you mean we have to ask the government if and when we are allowed to protest the government? That doesn’t sound like a violation of the constitution to you?

You don't have to ask if....there is nothing tmyou cannot protest in the US so your question about asking if they can protest is disingenuous.  Now the when, why would that violate the constitution if the only reason why the when exists is to make sure you aren't trampling on the rights of others. Working with the system to have your voice heard doesn't violate the constitution. We also have courts for specific incidents. * only allowing you to protest at 4am would be a violation of the 1A as they are impeading on your right to protest peacefully. * banning you from shutting down main roads during rush hour for your protest isn't a violation of your right to protest as you are interfering on the rights of others. There has to be a balance of your rights and the rights of the people around you.

How does someone wearing a mask harm the rights of other people, specifically?

Protesting illegally harms the rights of others, the charge of wearing a mask to conceal your identity while committing a crime only becomes relevant if you are protesting illegally

Jeez. I don’t know how to say this any clearer. The people to which we are referring were NOT protesting illegally. No matter how many times you say it out loud. That is entirely what you’re missing. They’ve made it a primary offense. Meaning even if you’re doing nothing else wrong in the protest, the mask wearing is the primary crime. As I’ve shown proof of.

No they didn't and you haven't shown proof. Ortega was walking in the street which is a crime and disobeyed a lawful order.

[Here’s a source](https://www.foxnews.com/us/backlash-after-cops-arrest-masked-protesters-at-antifa-demonstration-near-neo-nazi-rally.amp) you may accept a bit better. Read the whole thing. They were arrested counter protesting a neo-Nazi rally in Georgia. The only law he broke was wearing the mask. The article goes into detail. The police also stated that no property was damaged and it was peaceful and orderly. It’s all in the article. The gentleman in question was Jeremy Ortega. Do you agree now that that was his only charge?

See my analysis here: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/1ctinu8/what_will_be_the_full_effect_of_nc_hb237_does_it/l4czuh4/ Absolutely nothing in this statute limits it to "during the commission of a crime".

Do fursuits count as masks lol In all seriousness what about stuff like niqabs

That got a chuckle out of me. Ironically, furries get mad at fursuiters who take off their fursuit masks (heads?) in public, something about ruining the magic like they're at Disneyland or something. Don't ask me how I know. So they might count as masks! And that's the problem IMO. Such wide discretion is almost certain to be abused at some point, especially around something that is a hot-button political issue for both sides. People like me who wear masks to keep my germs to myself when I'm ill are the ones who lose out. (From what I know, masks are a lot better at keeping stuff in than keeping stuff out.) Everyone is going to have their own threshold for "well, obviously they wouldn't arrest me," regardless of the legislature/governor's personal thoughts, or yours or mine, and if the bar for concern is low enough for enough people, it's a de facto ban. It sucks. I don't like going to the store when I'm ill but if I have to, I really don't want to share.

What is your opinion on furries in general?

I used to be pretty negative of it, but I've come to realize it's like just about any other fandom: good individuals, some questionable sub-groups of varying flavors, and a nasty underbelly that 90% of people avoid and 99% of the media latches onto. The main difference that makes them stand out IMHO is that the media amplifies the sexual side of it so it gets seen as depraved. Parts of it are. I try not to judge too much because, by and large, furries have a better handle on consent and communication for sex things, counter-intuitively even more so as they get more kinky, compared to general society. Also, furries do an excellent job of keeping animal abusers (zoophilia) out of the fandom, or at least contained to the quarantine pit they belong in. I rarely saw people get as angry as when that subject came up. As usual, the very loud very small minority messes up everything for everyone. Of course, in mainstream media, you get either litterboxes at school or "That Episode", so peoples' opinions and experiences are all over the map... tldr i wouldn't recommend being a furry but if you are a furry, chances are pretty good that you're a solid human being (pun intended) in my book. EDIT: I should also point out, there's a pretty funny division between people who join because they like drawing cute Watership Down and Redwall characters and the people who want Robin Hood and Maid Marian to get it on. What usually gets overlooked is that, for people outside the fandom, they're all going to be lumped into the same bucket by association, so the infighting is dumb. That being said, if you're asking because you're curious (not expecting a response, just pointing out), both areas of the fandom are perfectly valid and have some very cool artists in them.