The rtight to Privacy and Face Mask wearing

Face Mask Mandate and the "Right-To-Privacy"

OK, I get it: Wearing a face mask is a good idea, about anywhere today. In my mind, about anywhere I am close enough to speak to another person. I am convinced of this, buy into the idea and practice it. I am considered at-risk in several categories, age being the most obvious.

However when wearing a face mask is made a legal mandate it raises some questions.

The Supreme Court has identified the right to privacy as grounds for forbidding any legal prohibition against abortion. They have found that a woman has the right to control her body. The slogan commonly heard is "My body, my choice". Given this established legal decision and the widely accepted cultural or social acceptance of it, why is it permissible to legally require anyone to wear a mask? After all, it is my body, why is it not my choice?

There is another issue at stake as well. If it is legal to require mask wearing . . .with legal ramifications for those who refuse, will it become legal to force everyone to get vaccinated? I myself have a pro-vaccine attitude, but many do not. In years past, there has been a vocal and determined opposition to any vaccination of children. If it is determined that forced mask wearing is permissible, will there be forced vaccinations? Perhaps forced is too strong a word. Coerced might be a better word.

Doing something such as mask wearing or vaccinating because it is the right thing to do is consistent with our historic societal values of independent thought and action. Doing something because it is forced upon us by legal mandate backed by coercion is not.

Face Mask Mandate and the "Right-To-Privacy" Originally Posted by ICU 812

Putting aside for the moment that wearing a "Face Mask" actually assists in protecting one's "Privacy" by at least partially concealing their IDENTITY .... (which is why the domestic terrorists wear them! ....



... awhile back during the LAST ADMMINISTRATION!)

... the "Right of Privacy" argument reminds me of the Anti-Redlight-Camera" proponents suggesting that having "Redlight Cameras" violated their "Right of Privacy" .... which I assumed meant they had a "right" to cut a red light without getting their picture taken!

Wear the mask ... it's for "their comfort" not yours! One day you'll not be able to wear one.

Oh don't ask to many questions , the scam will fall apart

So I assume you can walk the streets naked and enter stores without shirt, shoes, pants etc. Hell, why not just allow kids to dress how ever they want at schools.

The whole anti-mask argument is STUPID. It’s purely a matter of who said wear them and who didn’t. If Trump from the beginning said “wear masks” all his followers would be wearing them without complaint. It’s pretty telling that the only people making masks an issue are Trump followers, everyone else in the civilized world just wears the damn mask because it saves lives and slows the disease.

We curtail rights all the time as long as the government has a legitimate purpose for doing so. Slowing a fast spreading and very dangerous disease is about as legitimate as it gets. This is only political to Trump and his gang of idiots who somehow believe that acknowledging the horrendous condition of the US in the face of the disease hurts his election chances instead of trying everything possible to save lives. Shit stopping the disease might actually help his re-election chances since having a 60% disapproval on handling of the pandemic can’t possibly help him with anyone except the flatearthers that currently will vote for him regardless of anything he does.

If abortions ever become contagious...this might be an issue

There is legitimate argument over how much positive effect masks have on the transmission rate (Ro) of Wuhan virus.

DemLibs have made masks a 'cause celbre' - and as usual - tolerate no debate or other opinion.



It is a sign of how the DemLibs treat the First Amendment - and Second - and others.

Constitutional Rights are only for the favored Socialists - and No One else.

Socialists will destroy Our Constitution - it is their plan.

They show it every day in their patronizing posts which show dtheir advocacy of Supression of Free speech that disagrees with Them.

Which also shows their insecurity and controlling , authoritative nature - ala Gov Greusome, Whitmer, cuomo, Walz, and on and on.




The Most Racist organization in America - OBLM!!!!!!!! Headed by marxist revolutionaries dedicated to outlawing all Heterosexual contact.

does that fit your narrative, 'J'?????

Right now the case for requiring masks is stronger than the cases for outlawing speeding or drinking while driving, not to mention seat belt laws. You can save more lives with masks than you’d lose from DWI, if that were legalized. Also masks are a better option than lockdowns, which put people out of work and hurt the economy. I fully support Governor Abbott’s move to require masks.

There is legitimate argument over how much positive effect masks have on the transmission rate (Ro) of Wuhan virus. Originally Posted by oeb11

Oeb, Everything I’ve read indicates universal masking can push R below 1, so the infection dies out. Have you read something legitimate that would contradict that?

if you don't wear a mask, many businesses will not do business with you.

as for 100% masking, its not necessary. if you're outside, no need to wear a mask. unless there is a lot of people in crowded conditions under 3 ft, in that case wear one.

wear a mask when you go inside a building. enclosed buildings are virus vectors unless they're sterilized every day. they do stay in air via the air condition circulation.

Some responders here have misunderstood: I am Pro-Mask and pro social distancing. I take steps to reduce my risk of exposure and infection. I think everyone should take similar steps to protect themselves and everyone around them.

In the OP, I was trying to draw an equivalence between the Supreme Court's establishment of our expectation of privacy, as defined in the ourth Amendment ( in Roe v. Wade) , some times popularly expressed as " My ody, My Choice", and any government mandate to wear a mask . . .or get vaccinated.

If a citizen can assert the right to privacy via the 4th amendment to demand access to abortion, this same principle should control any government attempt to force, or coerce one to wear a mask or get vaccinated.

Nudity or footwear are not issues here. Freedom of choice , as guarenteed by the Bill of Rights IS the point.

if you don't wear a mask, many businesses will not do business with you.

as for 100% masking, its not necessary. if you're outside, no need to wear a mask. unless there is a lot of people in crowded conditions under 3 ft, in that case wear one.

wear a mask when you go inside a building. enclosed buildings are virus vectors unless they're sterilized every day. they do stay in air via the air condition circulation. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

Good advice Dilbert. Given that the virus is transmitted via aerosols as well as by droplets, three feet outside is probably pushing it. When I go on my run through the park I try to maintain a good bit more distance than that.

Some responders here have misunderstood: I am Pro-Mask and pro social distancing. I take steps to reduce my risk of exposure and infection. I think everyone should take similar steps to protect themselves and everyone around them.

In the OP, I was trying to draw an equivalence between the Supreme Court's establishment of our expectation of privacy, as defined in the ourth Amendment ( in Roe v. Wade) , some times popularly expressed as " My ody, My Choice", and any government mandate to wear a mask . . .or get vaccinated.

If a citizen can assert the right to privacy via the 4th amendment to demand access to abortion, this same principle should control any government attempt to force, or coerce one to wear a mask or get vaccinated.

Nudity or footwear are not issues here. Freedom of choice , as guarenteed by the Bill of Rights IS the point. Originally Posted by ICU 812

I'm like you. I'm pro-mask, pro-physical distancing. However, I'm with you about whether or not it is violating my 4th amendment rights by my being legally required to do so. If the courts find that it IS NOT a violation of my rights, then the whole anti-vaccine argument goes out the window. People should be required to get the vaccines for all the diseases that they avoid now. I see this "mandate" being a very slippery slope as to what the government can mandate and not mandate. We all have to remember that the Supreme Court finds precedent. After all, the "right to privacy" argument used with the Roe vs Wade decision was based on a railroad decision back in the 1800s. I'm sure when the court decided that "right to privacy" they had given absolutely no thought as to how far that right and arguments for that right would carry.

We live in interesting times.

Some responders here have misunderstood: I am Pro-Mask and pro social distancing. I take steps to reduce my risk of exposure and infection. I think everyone should take similar steps to protect themselves and everyone around them. Originally Posted by ICU 812

Yes, if everyone felt that way, it would be much better than what we've got now, being regulations that many people don't pay attention to.

Going back to your OP and your most recent post, while I'm not sure I'd agree with forced vaccinations, I believe there's no constitutional restriction on those, let alone requiring masks, at least as far as the Supreme Court is concerned:

https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org...idemic/2006-04

In 1905 the Supreme Court addressed mandatory vaccinations in regard to smallpox in Jacobson v Massachusetts [2]. There the Court ruled that the police power of a state absolutely included reasonable regulations established by legislature to protect public health and safety [2]. Such regulations do not violate the 14th Amendment right to liberty because they fall within the many restraints to which every person is necessarily subjected for the common good [3]. Real liberty for all cannot exist if each individual is allowed to act without regard to the injury that his or her actions might cause others; liberty is constrained by law. The Court went on to determine in Jacobson that a state may require vaccination if the board of health deems it necessary for public health or safety [4].