545
submitted 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

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.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] gregorum@lemm.ee 222 points 9 months ago

Wow, they cleared that up just in time

[-] winterayars@sh.itjust.works 42 points 9 months ago

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

...Wait that is not good news.

[-] Naja_Kaouthia@lemmy.world 29 points 9 months ago
[-] gregorum@lemm.ee 33 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

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

[-] JeSuisUnHombre@lemm.ee 17 points 9 months ago

I appreciate the attention to accuracy in your numbering

[-] gregorum@lemm.ee 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.

[-] GlitterInfection@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago
[-] Wrench@lemmy.world 29 points 9 months ago

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

[-] EdibleFriend@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago

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

[-] HikingVet@lemmy.ca 17 points 9 months ago

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

[-] nowwhatnapster@lemmy.world 16 points 9 months ago

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.

[-] shalafi@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

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.

[-] Aceticon@lemmy.world 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.

[-] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 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.

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

News

23275 readers
3451 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


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