New York's Governor Hands Down A Mask Mandate While The State's Anti-Mask Law Remains On The Books

from the house-divided-against-itself-can-still-disproportionately-arrest-young-black-men dept

The spread of the coronavirus throughout the nation is turning some old laws into new ridiculousness. One of the hardest hit areas in the US is New York, which has nearly 30% of the nation's total cases. This has led to lockdown orders and spread deterrent efforts more severe than seen elsewhere in the country.

One of the new mandates handed down by Governor Andrew Cuomo is a mask requirement when in public. The executive order that went into effect a few days ago says this:

Effective at 8 p.m. on Friday, April 17, 2020 any individual who is over age two and able to medically tolerate a face-covering shall be required to cover their nose and mouth with a mask or cloth face-covering when in a public place and unable to maintain, or when not maintaining, social distance.  

Sounds good and necessary, but as appellate public defender Sam Feldman points out on Twitter, this executive order conflicts with a law that's been around since the middle of the 19th century. That's going to be a problem.

If you can't read/see the tweets, Feldman says the new order does not suspend Penal Law § 240.35(4), which has been in existence since 1845. People trying to follow the executive order may find themselves engaging in criminal behavior. Here's Feldman:

As of 8pm tonight, wearing a mask in public places around other people who are also wearing masks is both forbidden and required by New York law. I'm sure the police will enforce these contradictory mandates in a completely rational & nondiscriminatory fashion.

Here's the law that's still on the books while the governor is mandating mask-wearing:

Being masked or in any manner disguised by unusual or unnatural attire or facial alteration, loiters, remains or congregates in a public place with other persons so masked or disguised, or knowingly permits or aids persons so masked or disguised to congregate in a public place;  except that such conduct is not unlawful when it occurs in connection with a masquerade party or like entertainment if, when such entertainment is held in a city which has promulgated regulations in connection with such affairs, permission is first obtained from the police or other appropriate authorities…

Perhaps the swiftest (or at least most entertaining) resolution would be for Governor Cuomo to issue an executive order declaring the entire state a "masquerade party" until the COVID-19 threats subsides. It might be the best thing for Cuomo himself, who appears to have run afoul of the law by "knowingly permitting or aiding persons so masked or disguised to congregate in a public place."

Given the law's origins, maybe it's time to take it off the books. Unlike others in the nation targeting KKK members, this one was a response to the "Anti-Rent War" in which protests by tenants culminated in a battle between anti-renters and local law enforcement. Some protesters disguised themselves as Indians, leading to the anti-mask ordinance. Rent is a pretty hot topic at the moment, what with 22 million Americans now unemployed. With planned rent strikes on the way in New York City, the new mask mandate is likely to run head on into the state's anti-mask law once law enforcement arrives on the scene.

A mask-wearing mandate coupled with an anti-mask law is selective enforcement just waiting to happen. And if it's anything like the last few hundred years of selective law enforcement, it will be minorities who pay the price for conflicting messages. We've already seen this happening elsewhere in the nation, where social distancing mandates are being enforced against minorities who throw parties but ignored when a bunch of white people decide stay-at-home orders violate their god-given right to act as attack vectors during a pandemic. Leaving it up to police officers to decide whether a person wearing a mask is a compliant citizen or a lawbreaker is going to result in a lot of blown judgment calls.

Filed Under: andrew cuomo, anti-mask law, covid-19, executive order, mask mandate, masks, new york


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Apr 2020 @ 11:14am

    So Halloween is basically illegal in New York.

    If challenged, I doubt this law would survive scrutiny against the Constitution and its amendments.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 21 Apr 2020 @ 12:34pm

      Re:

      The obvious reason it's invalid is that it does not define "social distance". It neither specifies a distance, nor delegates that regulatory authority to any party. Nor does it describe from whom one must be distanced (typically, authorities make no suggestion that co-habiting parties remain distant).

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Apr 2020 @ 1:06pm

        Re: obvious reason it's invalid

        geeez --- state governors can NOT make laws !

        ALL Laws must come from the legislative branch of government -- according to all state constitutions and US Constitution.

        Government commands to the populace are properly known as "laws".
        Labeling a Governor's "command" as a "mandate" or "Executive Order" does not change its nature!

        Cuomo (and many other state/local government executives) are directly violating constitutional law and citizen rights.

        Blatantly ignoring the rule of law is extremely dangerous.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 21 Apr 2020 @ 1:53pm

          Re: Re: obvious reason it's invalid

          That's not a small problem either. I was thinking the legislators had delegated that power under some emergency legislation. That didn't happen?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 21 Apr 2020 @ 7:03pm

            Re: Re: Re: obvious reason it's invalid

            ...the 3 independent branches of American government (Legislature, Executive, Judiciary) can not delegate their duties and constitutional authoritities to each other nor anybody else.

            There are no "emergency" powers in American constitutions that somehow override those constitution and negate citizen rights guaranteed in those constitutions.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 21 Apr 2020 @ 8:43pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: obvious reason it's invalid

              You seem a little confused. When the legislature makes laws giving governors emergency powers, it's fully legal. And yes, I WOULD like fries with that...

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                btr1701 (profile), 22 Apr 2020 @ 12:50pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: obvious reason it's invalid

                But there no 'except in an emergency' escape clause to the Bill of Rights in the Constitution. They apply all the time. Emergency or not.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 23 Apr 2020 @ 12:47am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: obvious reason it's invalid

                  "But there no 'except in an emergency' escape clause to the Bill of Rights in the Constitution. They apply all the time. Emergency or not."

                  ...and until SCOTUS makes a ruling to the contrary the emergency powers clause will stand. I believe that's how it works.

                  What is really odd is the use to which Cuomo put that power. A set of laws which have you in violation no matter what you do? I can only say christmas came early for any triggerhappy NYPD LEO with a hard-on for nightstick-and-pepper-spray play.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  bhull242 (profile), 23 Apr 2020 @ 1:35pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: obvious reason it's invalid

                  I think the idea is that the legislature (and the executive branch) can delegate their constitutional powers to another, even if the recipient is another branch of the government. While not expressly in the state or federal constitutions, there is a lot of case law supporting this as a valid transfer, even if conditional.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    Uriel-238 (profile), 23 Apr 2020 @ 3:09pm

                    valid transfers of power between branches.

                    Wow. This puts us two steps away from an Ermächtigungsgesetz.

                    It wouldn't surprise me that the doctrine of necessity that is the notion extralegal action by the state is justified to restore order to the state, is used in the US to justify suspending constitutional rights when it serves our institutions to do so.

                    After all, it's demonstrated multiple times every year the police can resolve a suspect asserting his or her rights with the simple application of a bullet.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • icon
                      Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 24 Apr 2020 @ 1:48am

                      Re: valid transfers of power between branches.

                      "Wow. This puts us two steps away from an Ermächtigungsgesetz."

                      Is this where we start discussing the "Patriot Act" and the legal term "Enemy Combatant" coined under those provisions?

                      Trump's whole presidency is nothing more than the logical consequences of the pre-existing state of US politics. He's no legislator, he's an opportunist who keeps showing us the more obvious ways of abusing the erosion of "checks and balances" which took place under GWB and the brief neocon hegemony.

                      The real issue is that the US is already halfway into an ermächtigungsgesetz due to multiple bad administrations removing safeguards because it was convenient to do so.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 22 Apr 2020 @ 8:56am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: obvious reason it's invalid

              ...the 3 independent branches of American government (Legislature, Executive, Judiciary) can not delegate their duties and constitutional authoritities to each other nor anybody else.

              I'm surprised, because it's incredibly common. I can only conclude that the Judiciary branch does not share your view. The inability to delegate would essentially make the SEC and EPA illegal, for example; lots of people that want them gone, and are filing lawsuits, but to my knowledge none use this theory.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Apr 2020 @ 3:22pm

        Re: Re:

        The law I referenced is the original from 1845. That's the only law involved here. What are you talking about?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Norahc (profile), 21 Apr 2020 @ 11:23am

    Far too many politicians are using their ass for a mask, making it difficult for them to think clearly.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Apr 2020 @ 11:24am

    Wow. Sam found an old law and it doesn't fit the current situation, covid or no covid. And then Tim creates an article about it. Wow!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 21 Apr 2020 @ 11:26am

      Nobody is forcing you to read the site, son.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Apr 2020 @ 11:54am

        Re:

        Actually AC is strapped into a chair with his eyes peeled open Clockwork Orange style and is given a keyboard and a screen for a computer that only has access to Techdirt and if he doesn't comment when new articles are posted, he gets electric shocks to his groin.

        Have a little consideration here!

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 21 Apr 2020 @ 12:01pm

      Re:

      Since laws are enforced by police at the end of a gun, exactly what do you think should be done when laws conflict?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Apr 2020 @ 12:11pm

        Re: Re:

        They were masked and not white, therefore I feared for my life...

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 22 Apr 2020 @ 12:18am

        Re: Re:

        "Since laws are enforced by police at the end of a gun, exactly what do you think should be done when laws conflict?"

        Officer; "Drop to the ground and take that mask off!!"
        Suspect; "Don't shoot! I'm taking it off now!"

        BANG!

        Officer; "I warned him, your honor, and then he broke the law again! He could have had COVID! I feared for my life!"

        Judge; "Ok, that's fair. Case dismissed."

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 22 Apr 2020 @ 12:13am

      Re:

      "Wow. Sam found an old law and it doesn't fit the current situation, covid or no covid. And then Tim creates an article about it. Wow!"

      You don't see a problem with official laws which essentially make it illegal to exist?

      Oh, wait. Of course you don't. You've gone pretty weaksauce lately though, Baghdad Bob, poking the techdirt writers with nothing but limp one-liners. Self-distancing get to you? Or didn't you get invited to the latest covid-party protesting the "democrat hoax"?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 22 Apr 2020 @ 2:21am

      Re:

      "Wow. Sam found an old law and it doesn't fit the current situation, covid or no covid"

      Yes. Do you not have a problem when legal orders directly conflict with each other, thus making them either unenforceable or (much scarier) potentially giving the cops ammunition to hold you in breach of one of those laws no matter what you do?

      I certainly find that problematic.

      "And then Tim creates an article about it"

      ...and then one of our village idiots is compelled to comment about how he doesn't like the article. The circle of life is again complete.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Pixelation, 21 Apr 2020 @ 11:29am

    Another issue with a law unmasked!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    aethercowboy (profile), 21 Apr 2020 @ 11:32am

    Aren't most anti-mask laws basically anti-KKK laws? My state's law strictly forbids conspiring to commit a crime while wearing a mask or a white cap.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      bhull242 (profile), 21 Apr 2020 @ 3:17pm

      Re:

      Wait, so if I conspire to commit a crime without wearing a mask or a white cap (assuming I don’t actually go on to commit the crime in question) or wear a mask or a white cap while not conspiring to commit a crime, that’s all fine, but put the two together, and now it’s against the law?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 24 Apr 2020 @ 1:53am

      Re:

      "Aren't most anti-mask laws basically anti-KKK laws?"

      It depends on which brand of mob the jurisdiction has historically had to deal with, honestly. In europe for instance, most anti-mask laws are because of hooliganism at soccer events.

      In the end what it pans out to is that anti-mask laws are because the legislature feels that a mob of masked men may feel encouraged to violently resist the riot police because they can't be identified and prosecuted if they can't be identified.

      It's a crappy argument but tends to carry weight and bring votes among a sufficiently frightened citizenry.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Apr 2020 @ 11:47am

    I never thought that at some point in time that I would walk into a bank while wearing a mask and ask for money. I'm sure that has no chance of backfiring.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Federico (profile), 21 Apr 2020 @ 12:26pm

    French ban on face covering

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Bodger (profile), 21 Apr 2020 @ 1:39pm

    It All Depends

    I'm sure that the police will be logic and even-handed as always and only view those masked while bearing excess melanin as malefactors.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Apr 2020 @ 1:40pm

    Several states have anti-mask laws. Some say mask must be threatening or intended to intimidate to be illegal. Some states prohibit all masks, period. Another good example of bogus and unconstitutional laws that need to be repealed or otherwise invalidated.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anomalous Cowherd, 21 Apr 2020 @ 2:19pm

    You insensitive brutes,,

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anomalous Cowherd, 21 Apr 2020 @ 2:25pm

    You insensitive brutes !!!

    Won’t anyone think of the poor facial recognition companies who are losing revenue — even as I type this — from the hordes of mask-wearing scofflaws appearing in public with the lower half of their faces coveted?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Uriel-238 (profile), 21 Apr 2020 @ 2:36pm

    Workaround

    Wear a mask that has a picture of your face on it.

    Hackers will wear a mask with someone else's face on it.

    Protesters will wear a Richard Nixon mask.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Apr 2020 @ 2:52pm

    And if it's anything like the last few hundred years of selective law enforcement, it will be minorities who pay the price for conflicting messages.

    The solution is obvious: wear masks that hide your minority status.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Naughty Autie, 22 Apr 2020 @ 11:03am

      Re:

      That's gonna be hard. I'm not sure there's a mask been invented that can hide my autism (a neurological minority).

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Uriel-238 (profile), 22 Apr 2020 @ 12:20pm

        Autism

        On the internet, no-one knows I'm a cat. (or an autist -- high-functioning, late diagnosis, but incidents of symptoms can be traced to when I was six). And when it comes to confrontational or bureaucratic processes it's hard for me to navigate phone calls, let alone deal with people face to face.

        But yes, we crazies are lower on the intern-and-perge lists than racial minorities, othered religions and LGBT+ but we are on the list and ultimately will be detained and processed when the fascists take over.

        And police like to shoot at us, even more than they like to shoot at blacks (bonus points for being both). While black lives don't matter, mental health patients compel police to fear for their safety even sooner. Those who are both are just a police stop away from death.

        My solution has been to operate at home and to utilize automated systems to get what I need when I can before resorting to human systems. You may not have that privilege, Naughty Autie but I do hope you manage to find your way free of hazard.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    McKay (profile), 21 Apr 2020 @ 7:31pm

    I think they can be reconciled.

    If you're wearing a space suit, your face can be seen, and so should be in compliance with the 19th century law, and if that transparent face covering prevents the spread of disease, you should be good. Everyone has a space suit right?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Aaron Walkhouse (profile), 21 Apr 2020 @ 8:38pm

    As the Governor's executive order is effective permission…

    …by the Head of Government in person, no less:

    Wearing a mask in compliance with that order is
    unambiguously compliant with Penal Law § 240.35(4),
    especially as the intent is obviously not to form a "mob."

    No doubt the Police will not want to piss off the Boss. ; ]

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      TFG, 22 Apr 2020 @ 9:01am

      Re: As the Governor's executive order is effective permission…

      This would be rational.

      Officer judgement on the ground has been repeatedly found to subjugate rationality to "I want to make life hell for that minority person."

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Aaron Walkhouse (profile), 21 Apr 2020 @ 8:43pm

    No doubt the Police will not want to piss off the Boss. ; ]

    As the Governor's executive order is effective permission
    by the Head of Government in person, no less:

    Wearing a mask in compliance with that order is
    unambiguously compliant with Penal Law § 240.35(4),
    especially as the intent is obviously not to form a "mob."

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Bobvious, 22 Apr 2020 @ 1:00am

    "result in a lot of blown judgment calls."

    Oh. For a moment there I thought that said "a lot of BROWN judgement calls"

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 23 Apr 2020 @ 12:54am

      Re: "result in a lot of blown judgment calls."

      "For a moment there I thought that said "a lot of BROWN judgement calls""

      That only applies if the LEO faces the conundrum of a suspect wearing a full-face mask with hood and gloves. Being Brown In Public might be suspicious behavior to many officers in law enforcement but suspicion of being brown might not fly as well with the judge when the hearing commences about the guy in the "anonymous" mask catching 8 bullets with his back.

      Some judges might make the call the officer observed bad judgment as the masked suspect could have been white and therefore innocent until proven guilty.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Jeroen Hellingman (profile), 22 Apr 2020 @ 1:50am

    Under any rational interpretation of the law, any new regulation at the same level as an old regulation that contradicts that old regulation should automatically supersede that old regulation. Only problem: Officers are not exactly known for doing the rational thing, and getting justice through the courts is either too costly or takes too long.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 22 Apr 2020 @ 6:43am

    "One of the new mandates handed down by Governor Andrew Cuomo (& other Democratic Governors, ed.) is a mask requirement when in public. ... Sounds good and necessary".
    Haven't we heard this before? Let me present a response from some one far more experienced than myself:

    Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
    It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
    -- William Pitt, 1783 (UK Prime Minister)

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 22 Apr 2020 @ 7:18am

      Re:

      Out of curiosity do you hold similar views when it comes to seat-belt laws, or does the necessity of keeping people from horrible injury/death get a pass in those cases?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        TFG, 22 Apr 2020 @ 9:03am

        Re: Re:

        I also don't really see how "must wear a mask in public so as to lower the chance of infection of yourself or others" really impinges on anyone's freedom.

        This kind of order is the kind that goes away when the threat goes away, as well.

        The anti-mask law, on the other hand, is absolutely an example of the type of thing that quote refers to.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        btr1701 (profile), 22 Apr 2020 @ 12:55pm

        Re: Re:

        I do. Whether to wear a seatbelt or not should be my choice, not forced on me by the government.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Stephen T. Stone (profile), 22 Apr 2020 @ 3:01pm

          Should you get to make that choice for everyone else in your car?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 23 Apr 2020 @ 1:04am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "I do. Whether to wear a seatbelt or not should be my choice, not forced on me by the government."

          Ideally it would be the car owner forcing you to either wear the belt or gtfo. Particularly if you're in the back seat where not wearing a belt, in the case of collision, would turn you into a human cannonball killing the people in front of you.

          However, the car owner and driver would, in a collision, only kill himself which is, in the end, one of those objectively poor life choices one should be able to make.

          I'd say the law requires more nuance. That such a law is required at all is, honestly, an argument in favor of China's way of doing things. If people in general regularly demonstrate idiocy endangering others, at what point do you, as a politician, just give up and try to take the right to kill other people through casual stupidity away?

          Homo Sapiens Sapiens?...yeah, right.

          We'd be better served with the latin for "Dumbass motherfsckers".

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          PaulT (profile), 23 Apr 2020 @ 1:40am

          Re: Re: Re:

          People like you, who don't understand that you're risking others as well as yourself, are the reason why they're mandated.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 22 Apr 2020 @ 10:03am

      Do you support COVID-19? Because it seems like you’re arguing that mask requirements should be rescinded. In that case, you’d also be arguing for members of the general public to risk the health of both themselves and other people by becoming disease vectors. And that sounds like support for spreading the disease instead of eradicating it.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Naughty Autie, 22 Apr 2020 @ 11:08am

        Re:

        Actually, I thinkTim's point is that the 19th century mask ban should be repealed so as to allow people to follow the new law without breaking the old one.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 23 Apr 2020 @ 1:32am

          Re: Re:

          "...the 19th century mask ban should be repealed so as to allow people to follow the new law without breaking the old one."

          Which is the sensible choice. Prohibiting people from endangering other people is something backed by proportionality of law.
          Mandated dress code, forcing people to cover or uncover parts of their own body in public...not so much, I find.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    btr1701 (profile), 22 Apr 2020 @ 12:48pm

    Racial Bias

    Why is it that-- according to you-- minorities just throw parties, but when white people throw parties, they're exercising 'their god-given right to act as attack vectors during a pandemic'?

    Aren't they all acting as attack vectors during a pandemic? Or do only white people this disease?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 22 Apr 2020 @ 3:00pm

      The point is that cops usually see Black people holding a party as “a problem”, but see White people holding a party as “a normal, everyday thing”. Cops assume, more often than not, that a gathering of Black people carries some inherent criminality which a gathering of White people do not. COVID-19 is merely giving cops a better excuse to make that assumption.

      Think about those anti-lockdown protests that have been going on this week. People with guns showed up to some of those ridiculous displays of selfishness. How lenient do you believe the cops would’ve been towards those armed protestors if most of them had been Black people instead of White people?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 24 Apr 2020 @ 2:43am

      Re: Racial Bias

      "Why is it that-- according to you-- minorities just throw parties, but when white people throw parties, they're exercising 'their god-given right to act as attack vectors during a pandemic'?"

      That's not what I'm getting out of this. What I read is that a party with white attendees gets more law enforcement leeway than a party with non-white attendees.

      And to be fair the exact wording of the OP says this:

      "...social distancing mandates are being enforced against minorities who throw parties but ignored when a bunch of white people decide stay-at-home orders violate their god-given right to act as attack vectors during a pandemic."

      I think every sane person won't give a single fsck about the motivation anyone has for endangering other people, but the fact that the law is enforced based on skin color, with white people in particular feeling safe to act out their "god-given rights" to defy the law where a black person might know differently due to the talk...THAT is an issue worth noting.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.