this post was submitted on 08 Feb 2024
544 points (98.4% liked)

News

23014 readers
13 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

A federal appeals court has shot down claims that there's a First Amendment right not to wear face masks during the COVID-19 outbreak

A federal appeals court shot down claims Monday that New Jersey residents' refusal to wear face masks at school board meetings during the COVID-19 outbreak constituted protected speech under the First Amendment.

The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling in two related cases stemming from lawsuits against officials in Freehold and Cranford, New Jersey.

The suits revolved around claims that the plaintiffs were retaliated against by school boards because they refused to wear masks during public meetings. In one of the suits, the court sent the case back to a lower court for consideration. In the other, it said the plaintiff failed to show she was retaliated against.

Still, the court found that refusing to wear a mask during a public health emergency didn't amount to free speech protected by the Constitution.

...

The court added: “Skeptics are free to — and did — voice their opposition through multiple means, but disobeying a masking requirement is not one of them. One could not, for example, refuse to pay taxes to express the belief that ‘taxes are theft.’ Nor could one refuse to wear a motorcycle helmet as a symbolic protest against a state law requiring them.”

all 22 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 222 points 9 months ago (6 children)

Wow, they cleared that up just in time

[–] [email protected] 42 points 9 months ago

Good news! COVID is still going strong, there's time!

...Wait that is not good news.

[–] [email protected] 29 points 9 months ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 32 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

2020 - S05E38 - No Mask, No Rights

A federal appeals court has shot down claims that there’s a First Amendment right not to wear face masks during the COVID-19 outbreak. A federal appeals court shot down claims Monday that New Jersey residents’ refusal to wear face masks at school board meetings during the COVID-19 outbreak constituted protected speech under the First Amendment. The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling in two related cases stemming from lawsuits against officials in Freehold and Cranford, New Jersey. The suits revolved around claims that the plaintiffs were retaliated against by school boards because they refused to wear masks during public meetings. In one of the suits, the court sent the case back to a lower court for consideration. In the other, it said the plaintiff failed to show she was retaliated against. Still, the court found that refusing to wear a mask during a public health emergency didn’t amount to free speech protected by the Constitution. - TV-MA, 59 mins

SD, SHD, UHD, Dolby Vision; Dolby Stereo, Dolby Surround, Dolby Atmos

[–] [email protected] 17 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I appreciate the attention to accuracy in your numbering

[–] [email protected] 11 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

I touched it up a bit. I had a satirical series going a while back, but I stopped it around “episode 16”. maybe I’ll drop a new one here an there.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Richard Nixon... THE ACTOR?

[–] [email protected] 29 points 9 months ago

Well, now its case law for the next time it happens. So we have that going for us.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 9 months ago (1 children)

At this point people wearing a mask are the ones who stand out. I see maybe 3 or 4 a week.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I assume at this point they could have a cold and still have to be out in public.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I just don't want to get sick. I get sick from catching other peoples airborne illnesses in public. I wear a mask in public to reduce that risk. It's not that complicated.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Masks are more to protect other people from your illness. Asians got the memo long ago.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Yes, that's why healthy doctors wear masks in hospitals full of contagious people. To protect the sick people from their health.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

There were actual studies done and that kind of mask (aka "hospital masks") are more effective at reducing transmission when worn by the person who is sick than by when worn by other people, with the best protection (naturally) achieved when both wear a mask.

(Note that doctors also use masks during surgery and when seeing immuno-compromised patients, so that theory of yours immediatly jumps out as at best incomplete even without knowing about these studies)

There are masks with a much higher protection level which are much better at personal protection (not really meant to protect others from you), such as the PF1, PF2 and so on, but that's not what we're talking about here.

So the previous poster was entirelly right.

Looking at the upvotes/downvotes here it's surprising how fast people seem to have forgotten this kind of information that was circulating widelly during peak COVID pandemic times.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago

If it helps, they were both shot down by the District court and while their suits requested injunctive relief (which was moot shortly after filing as mandates ended), they also wanted compensation. So the only result potentially being delayed was them getting money.

[–] [email protected] 26 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

This would fit in very well with a dysfunctional local government sitcom:

When Officer Alfeldi arrived and insisted that Falcone wear a mask, he responded “that he was engaged in constitutionally protected activities, including his remaining unmasked, and that he would not put on a mask unless defendant Alfeldi advised that he would be arrested for not doing so.” Id. Officer Alfeldi assured Falcone that he would not be arrested, so he remained maskless. Moments before the Board convened, Falcone “served what he believed were legal papers on each Board member.” Id. He then spoke at the podium for public citizen speakers—still maskless—and was approached by a second police officer who again directed him to wear a mask. Falcone responded by pointing out that the officer himself was unmasked.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 9 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 14 points 9 months ago

Yes but also, I’m glad it’s formal and on the books. I’m glad the argument was had and that cooler heads prevailed or smarter heads or whatever. I’m glad the country has taken the opportunity to clarify the often misused first amendment.

It’s a good step, even if it states the obvious and too late.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Holy shit guys... a second plane has hit the trade towers... :O