If you thought all the dumb controversy over masking that took place during the height of the COVID pandemic was finally behind us, think again.
Anti-masking laws were around well before COVID-19. I’d been talking about it due to stuff like the “burkini” controversy in France bringing up restrictions various countries had on clothing.
Plus discussion about mass facial recognition permitting tracking, and whether masks could counter that.
I also remember joking, at the start of the conflict, about how mask mandates conflicted with anti-masking laws.
There are anti-mask laws in many U.S. states and the District of Columbia.
New York State’s anti-mask law was enacted in 1845, to provide for public safety after disputes between landlords and tenants.
Many anti-mask laws date back to the mid-20th century, when states and municipalities passed them to stop the violent activities of the Ku Klux Klan, whose members typically wore hoods of white linen to conceal their identities.
In the 21st century those laws have been applied to political protesters such as those affiliated with the Occupy Movement or Anonymous – wearing Guy Fawkes masks.
These laws have been challenged on the grounds that they violate the guarantees of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution to free speech and free association. Some courts have weighed freedom of speech against the public safety interest, and upheld such laws. For example, the Georgia Supreme Court found the law constitutional on the grounds that the wearing of the mask was an act of intimidation and a threat of violence, which is not protected speech. That law has exceptions for holiday celebrations, theatre performances, and occupational safety; the ruling makes it unclear if someone is violating the law if they wear a mask without the intent to threaten violence. A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld a New York law on the ground that wearing a Ku Klux Klan mask did not convey a protected message beyond that conveyed by wearing a hood and robe. Other courts have struck down anti-mask laws. For example, Tennessee and Florida state laws have been invalidated on the grounds that they were unconstitutionally broad. An ordinance in Goshen, Indiana, was struck down based on First Amendment doctrine that specifically protects anonymous speech and anonymous association, especially for unpopular groups like the KKK.
My own gut take is that across-the-board restrictions on wearing masks probably aren’t necessary; the ability to track people is a lot more extensive than was the case when such laws went into place. And in 1950, companies had no prospect of, say, tying together camera networks and running facial recognition en masse. Today, that’s a real possibility.
That being said, I think that unless social norms change so that a significant portion of people do wear masks, which I don’t think is likely, elimination of anti-mask laws probably also isn’t going to do much to avoid mass surveillance.
Anti-masking laws were around well before COVID-19. I’d been talking about it due to stuff like the “burkini” controversy in France bringing up restrictions various countries had on clothing.
Plus discussion about mass facial recognition permitting tracking, and whether masks could counter that.
I also remember joking, at the start of the conflict, about how mask mandates conflicted with anti-masking laws.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-mask_law
My own gut take is that across-the-board restrictions on wearing masks probably aren’t necessary; the ability to track people is a lot more extensive than was the case when such laws went into place. And in 1950, companies had no prospect of, say, tying together camera networks and running facial recognition en masse. Today, that’s a real possibility.
That being said, I think that unless social norms change so that a significant portion of people do wear masks, which I don’t think is likely, elimination of anti-mask laws probably also isn’t going to do much to avoid mass surveillance.