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.”
Wow, they cleared that up just in time
Good news! COVID is still going strong, there’s time!
…Wait that is not good news.
What year is it?!
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
I appreciate the attention to accuracy in your numbering
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.
Richard Nixon… THE ACTOR?
deleted by creator
Well, now its case law for the next time it happens. So we have that going for us.
At this point people wearing a mask are the ones who stand out. I see maybe 3 or 4 a week.
I assume at this point they could have a cold and still have to be out in public.
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.
Masks are more to protect other people from your illness. Asians got the memo long ago.
Yes, that’s why healthy doctors wear masks in hospitals full of contagious people. To protect the sick people from their health.
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.
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.
deleted by creator