No, from a Strict Constructionalist POV that is the case. However, others of us believe that We the People retain the rights we haven’t explicitly given the government the right to regulate. The fact is, many of our rights are infringed upon, though we acquiesce in far too many cases. Lib is certainly correct in his continual denouncing of the idea that “those scribbles” are the source of our rights. The Congress should explicitly justify how it is fulfilling it’s Constitutional role with every piece of legislation it passes. Without that justification, every law should be considered Unconstitutional on it’s face.
Good grief. Now a city that requires film permits is fascist?
Look. Requiring a permit for a parade is no different than requiring a film permit: both activities have the potential of disrupting vehicular and pedestrian traffic, and can legitimately be regulated. Now, if the city is acting in some way that is not content-neutral: permitting the filming of Idiocies of the American Liberal while denying permission to the makers of Right Wing Retards, then you certainly have a point. But a city can certainly require reasonable, content-neutral controls of movie crews’ production in the middle of their streets.
Uh huh.
Well, good luck with that.
I can only point out that the above rationale is unlikely to be considered by the courts as sufficient to overcome the city’s interest in prohibiting mask-wearing.
Good luck with that, too. I don’t anticipate that rule ever coming into being.
- Rick
I am simply bewildered by the idea that people should be free to wear masks on public streets… it strikes me as being in the same category of behavior as wearing all black clothes and sneaking around residential neighborhoods with a screwdriver and crowbar in one’s pockets: the correlation to illegal behavior simply cannot be dismissed as coincidental, and it seems reasonable that cities and states have enacted laws against such behavior.
Which brings me to a question: even sven, it seems that you have been to your own fair share of protests. Have you broken laws during those protests, whether masked or not?
No he’s not. You know, you can say you’ve got these inalienable, god given rights or whatever, but it doesn’t matter. You have the rights the law gives you, and you have the rights that the people who are stronger than you let you have. That’s the way it is, that’s the way it was, and that’s the way it always will be, because that’s how people are. We’re creatures of order. We organize the world around us and each other, and we fall into hierarchies and accept power.
You can say, “But I have the right to do X”, but unless you’re strong enough to stop the people who are preventing you from doing it, you won’t be allowed to do it.
I think it’s all a lot of hype designed to show how the Eeevil ™ 'Publicans are oppressing the people by trying to repress the demonstrations.
I guess the irony of a vastly pro-Democratic city arresting anti-Republican protesters willy-nilly goes right by most folks.
Even Sven, if you think the fascists are going to assassinate you for holding a giant puppet and an anti-Bush sign in Central Park, you’re insane.
Suppose you’re right, that the fascists really are taking over the country secretly. How exactly does assassinating street protestors advance their agenda? Yes, I can see fascists assassinating anti-fascist leaders of consequence. But since there is no anti-fascist movement in this country people protesting fascism are by definition not leaders, they are simply ignorable kooks. Assassinating Martin Luther King might make sense (or it might not, depending), but assassinating that guy who makes giant George Bush puppets? Why not just ignore him?
And since the vast majority of protesters manage to protest unmasked and don’t get assassinated, why exactly do people who want to protest masked feel that they are in special danger, while the Quaker grandmothers aren’t? Why are the Quaker grandmothers safe? Why aren’t they being assassinated?
In case you’re wondering why I’m going on and on with the Quaker Grandmothers, I’m thinking of one particular grandmother who happens to be my neighbor. She protests at the Bangor submarine base all the time, has been arrested many times, etc etc. Let me tell you, mister masked anarchist fraidycat, she is worth a hundred of you. If the fascists were going to assassinate someone, she would be on their list waaaaay before you were even noticed. So why isn’t she afraid to show her face at political protests?
One more thing, about library books. It doesn’t seem out of line for police to be able to get a list of library books a suspect has checked out, provided a judge grants a warrant. But even so, why should we expect our library usage to remain secret? What is it about secrecy? Secrecy is bad for liberal democracy, transparency and accountability are good for liberal democracy. When someone is fighting to keep information secret, you can probably assume 90% of the time that they are fighting on the wrong side. And when someone is fighting to release information, you can probably assume 90% of the time that they are fighting on the wrong side.
Anyway, technology is against the side of secrecy. What good is putting on a mask when ubiquitious video cameras can watch you as you put on that mask? The rich and powerful will always be able to access surveillance technology. The way to combat surveillance is not with mandated secrecy, that won’t work. You have to have transparency. If the cops have video cameras pointed at you, you have to be able to point a video camera back at them. Secrecy and anonymity benefit the powerful, openness, transparency and accountability benefit the people.
This thread illustrates what I consider to be an unfortunate penchant for paranoia on this forum.
Firstly, I’ll be the first to say that people should be suspicious of government. Even the more conservative Founding Fathers believed that a representative government like our own needs to be monitored closely. We need to keep it on as short a leash as possible and keep it from developing more independent power than it needs.
At the same time, there is something I like to call common sense. I mean, there is a point where you go from being appropriately watchful and become instead ludicrously paranoid. There is a point where good and rational oversight and opposition to governmental power becomes tinfoilish madness.
Has government ever abused power? Yes, government has indeed. However in the history of the United States typically this only happens in very rare instances when certain people are trying to strike at a fundamental core of society. Martin Luther King was striking at a fundamental core of Southern society. He was saying, unashamedly, that blacks were the equals of whites in every way, and that laws ought reflect that.
However no one is striking at the fundamental core of our society when they protest Republicans because they are Democrats. That is just common election year happenings. There are also people that protest every major party convention every year because they hate political parties and are pseudo-anarchists.
Obviously the protests in NYC are bigger than that. But at the same time they aren’t much more than any fairly meaningless protests we’ve seen in the past. It is rare that a protest means shit in this country. We’ve had people protest things that only make sense logically. We’ve had people protest things that are of such little importance in the world it is almost laughable.
Protesting isn’t some Holy Grail. The simple fact is 99% of all protests in this country do absolutely nothing. A huge percent get no national media coverage. And only a miniscule percent of those that GET national media coverage really influence policymaking.
Anyways to strike back at some random inanity I’ve seen in this thread:
- This is one of those statutes that is rarely enforced and was designed to deal with race-criminals. Furthermore even when it is enforced outside of that scope, it just is not a big deal.
In some states I know that these laws stretch back well over fifty years. I don’t think American democracy has failed in the last fifty years. So to start preaching the coming of an absolutist government because of these almost meaningless statute is just ludicrous.
- Rioters aren’t the same thing as protesters. Rioters are criminals. You don’t hug criminals, hold their hands, give them a dozen roses, when you are attempting to stop them during commission of a crime. Rioting is a crime, remember that. Protesting is a protected form of political expression, rioting is a crime.
I think intimidating riot gear does a lot better than floral patterns and such. I think big shields, big armored men, non-lethal crowd control devices et cetra do a lot better at control an angry mob that is breaking the law than pictures of the kids do. Let’s for just a second on this forum use a little common sense.
- No one should ever be fired from any job for something as trivial as a uniform error.
Actually, I’ve never been to a protest bigger than a couple that addressed local university issues. I don’t believe in protests that don’t have a single stated goal and a plan to achieve that goal. I think these hodge-podge protests are a poor use of energy, and the current protest movement would benefit from focusing on single subjects and deciding how they are going to make actual progress on this subject.
That said, I indirectly know people invovled in the Judi Bari Earth First car bomb case. Many protest organizers (not random Joe at a protest, but the people that head the organizations involved) believe that they may end up targeted- especially if their fears are right and the government is losing it. They believe they are currently being heavily monitered- to the point that undercover agents have been placed in their houseing cooperatives and have infilterated their meetings. Yeah, there is a lot of paranoia, and they feed each other’s paranoia. But when they personally know people that they believe have been assassinated, you can’t blame them.
So in other words, Might makes right, and that’s it? And that’s how it should be?
Yeah, I remember that case well. I lived in Berkeley when that car was bombed.
The idea that Earth First, especially in those days, bears any resemblance to peaceful marchers in NYC is plain bogus. We both know that Earth First was widely involved in civil disobedience, tresspass, sabotage, tree spiking, and other sorts of illegal activity. That was the whole reason they existed!
Your point seems to be that people who engage in lawful protests may be targeted for harassment by police. Bringing up EF doesn’t advance your case, because they were not engaged in lawful protest. The bombing appears to still be an open case, but I’m not convinced at all that the FBI was harassing them; rather than doing any more than a lawful investigation of a law-breaking organzation. Hell, yes, I want law enforcement officials looking at groups that openly advocate breaking the law. What on earth is wrong with that?
So, I just can’t see a parallel between those folks and the people who lawfully carry signs and puppets down 5th Avenue. I still contend that the latter have no reason to wear masks to conceal themselves from police, and so far, you really haven’t shown anything besides paranoia that our government targets lawful protesters.
Whether it should be that way or not, it is, and we can’t change it. It’s like those tax protestors. Whether they’re right or wrong about the income tax being unconstitutional, you’ll still go to jail if you don’t pay your taxes.
And whether you have a god given right to wear a mask at a protest or not, you’ll still be arrested for it, unless you can get the law repealed or found unconstitutional.
Oh, please. Anyone who thinks our current situation is anything like the Spanish Civil War has head up his ass. It’s a nice little fantasy, sure, and everyone likes to feel like they’re a brave revolutionary manning the barricades and all that, but the comparison is ridiculous.
Nobody, and I do mean nobody, who speaks out “pubically” about our government has to worry about not living to tell about it. I’m not a Bush supporter by any means, but he’s not exactly Franco. And the protesters at the convention aren’t the Abraham Lincoln Brigade, either.
Do your homework and read Orwell’s Homage to Catalonia. It’s a great book, and it’s pretty instructive about the Spanish Civil War. And nowhere in it does Orwell or anyone he writes about express a need to wear a mask.
You are 100% correct. It is paranoid to think that the simple act of wearing something that covers one’s face should be a crime, it is paranoid to think that wearing a face cover is a fair indicator that the wearer is going to commit a crime, and it is questionable whether arresting someone for the crime of concealing his face actually prevents any crime.
By the way, what crime was prevented by arresting the two actors, aside from the crime of concealing their faces?
Just how do the laws in question define “hiding one’s identity”? I can understand a ski mask or KKK hood, but what about blue contact lenses? A wig? Makeup?
At some point makeup can become an attempt to hide one’s identity. Would a pirate-type eye patch be OK if there there were an empty socket underneath the patch? If Anna Nicole Smith were protesting without makeup (aside from the crime against humanity) would that be an attempt to hide one’s identity?
How about the masks worn on Mission Impossible (the old TV show, not the movie)? “Hey look…there’s Richard Nixon protesting…aint he dead?”
Lemur866, here are some of the ways in this thread you have characterized masked protesters and their actions:
Would you please show me which of these is a crime that necessitates a law to restrict personal freedom? I understand you hold such protesters in contempt, but that is a personal opinion. Why should your personal opinion be codified into law?
There are many kinds of protest, and all these are examples of civil disobedience, which by definition requires the breaking of laws one finds objectionable. Arrest and prosecution is part of the plan. But protest of government policy, such as the war in Iraq, or economic policy do not require the dissenter to break the law in order to make their views known.
Apparently you think any protest that doesn’t result in persecution, head-cracking or arrest is cowardly. Peaceful, non-violent protest that does not violate any laws is in the best tradition of dissent in America, and should be encouraged. Instead, you feel it is necessary to denigrate anyone who doesn’t suffer for their views, just because they wear a mask. How does this promote freedom of expression?
In that case, I would like to see your tax returns for the last 3 years. I don’t need to justify my need to see them, in fact, to merely ask why I want to see them apparently makes you guilty of the secrecy you decry. So what is the difference? Does absolute openness end only when it invades your own personal space, but not that of protesters you disagree with?
I’m done. This isn’t my fight.
You guys are all right. Wearing masks is unAmerican, as is making movies without a permit. We must put a stop to these activities. Nobody has, does, or will ever have anything to fear from the American government. And people should not worry about the information the government has on them because only the guilty will have anything to fear.
What’s the fuss? No American right is an absolute one.
Free speech? Sure. Just don’t defame anyone, incite a riot, or shout “fire” in a crowded theater.
Free press? Won’t protect you from a libel suit.
Right to bear arms? As long as that arm isn’t a bazooka. And please jump through these million bureaucratic hoops. (Right to bear arms invalid in DC.)
Right to feel secure in your own home? That means the cops have to get a warrant. It doesn’t mean you have the right to keep them out forever. That basement meth lab is a bad idea.
And so on. Same with the right to peacefully assemble. Part of assembling peacefully is doing so unmasked. Considering the mischief masked demonstrators have committed in the past (you know, pesky things like hanging black men) this is a valid and reasonable law.
I find this argument ridiculous. Is it illegal to walk around residential neighborhoods with a screwdriver, a crowbar and dark clothing? Should it be? I think it is perfectly reasonable for the police to question someone in this position, but arrest them?
What about owning a muscle car. It seems to me that the correlation between ownership and illegal speeding simply cannot be dismissed as coincidental, and it seems reasonable that cities and states can enact laws against such owning such equipment.
Sorry, I just don’t find that the argument works.
I don’t like this law. I think that people should be allowed to wear masks when protesting. If they commit a violent act or intimidate people, arrest them. I can think of several reasons to wear a mask.
-
Here in Denver, the police like to spy on protestors and keep documentation of their activities even when they are not demonstrating. I don’t relish the idea of the police tailing me and monitoring my activities even though I am a law abiding citizen.
-
I am an atheist, while the majority of my coworkers, including all the upper management at my company are very pious Christians. If I wanted to protest the words under god in the pledge, I would definitely wear a mask. I would not want to be passed over for promotions or face the subtle discrimination that would result from my coworkers knowing I was an atheist. I might even be fired with an excuse made up to stymie any potential lawsuits. It happens. If it did happen to me, and I was able to prove it in court, get my job back, back pay, etc, it would not be worth the pain it would put my wife and daughter through.
But I should stand up and fight you say. If I am not willing to get fired over it (or face some other potentially unseen consequences) I should just shut up. I have a wife and children, and I, sadly, would give up some of my rights and freedoms to protect them from tough times or hunger.
Sorry for the rambling nature of this post, but I am short on time…
911 Operator: 911, what’s your emergency?
Worried Woman: There are three men standing outside my house wearing KKK hoods.
911 Operator: And?
Worried Woman: And? And it’s 3 a.m. and I’m a single black woman in my house with my three kids, and they’re standing right outside my house!
911 Operator: Are they on the public sidewalk, ma’am?
Worried Woman: Yes, what difference does that make?
911 Operator: Well, they’re not trespassing on your property, ma’am.
Worried Woman: But they’re wearing KKK hoods!
911 Operator: There’s nothing illegal about that, ma’am.
Worried Woman: So you won’t send the police?
911 Operator: All they may be guilty of is loitering. It’s a busy night, I could dispatch police but it might be more than hour before they arrive. This is not a high priority matter, ma’am.
Worried Woman: So what would make it a high priority matter, then?
911 Operator: Well, the men would have to do something. Like enter your property and then refuse to leave.
Worried Woman: I’d have to go out there and tell them to leave?! There are three of them. I’m here alone with my children!
911 Operator: Well, if they did anything inherently illegal, like try to break in…
Worried Woman: So you won’t come out to prevent a crime by people who obviously have malicious intent, but you’ll come rushing after they’ve already done something which could cost me or my children our lives, huh? And this is because it’s not illegal to stand outside someone’s house in the middle of the night concealing your identity in the uniform of a murderous, illegal organization?
911 Operator: Do you want me to dispatch police on a possible loitering, ma’am?
Every limitation is an affront to absolute freedom, but absolute freedom isn’t possible in an orderly society. If you don’t want to live in constant chaos, you accept certain constraints, especially those which limit activities which would make it much easier to commit aggregate crimes.