The Constitution, Freedom of Expression, Public Health

[_Themis]

Yup, I'm sure that EAllusion was asking a rhetorical question. While he was quite entitled to do that, I am pretty sure that with a person like subgenius, any kind of subtlety or indirectness is wasted effort. Just ignore him, or call out his diversionary crap directly for what it is.

It just a way of showing that subby and others like Ajax already believe in similar laws governing behavior as a law requiring mask wearing would. Whether they understand it or not.

[_Gunnar]

What are the limits to freedom of expression? Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes is known for simply stating "the right to swing your fist while walking down the street ends where the other man's nose begins".

How does that pertain to the debate about whether wearing a mask is a violation of freedom of expression under the First Amendment? While swinging your fist and not wearing a mask are 2 different behaviors, they both can result in physical harm. Not wearing a mask can result is something far more damaging than a bloody nose.

While that may seem fairly open and shut, it is of course more complicated. For any individual it is easy to plot the course from the end of your fist to the other man's nose. In Covid analogy, there is not a 100% predictable outcome. Not wearing a mask is more akin to furiously windmilling your arms while walking down the street. It may or may not result in a metaphorical bloody nose of infection. A negative outcome is far less certain, but the ramifications of infection are far more injurious to the public than a single bloody nose.

It is one of the big issues of the Pandemic, and indeed of any large public health crisis. How do we evaluate the rights of the individual during a pandemic? Do we assign the same individual rights during a Pandemic? As a culture we value the individual, but as a species we value the herd.

So well said and so obviously true and reasonable, it hardly even needs further comment or explanation, except to say, "amen!"

[_EAllusion]

My question was making a rhetorical point for everyone but Subs and for Subs was a actual question. Taking his description of California law at face value, he seems to express contempt for it. But let's not assume that. If he dislikes the law, then it can't work as a basis to criticize mask orders. If he likes the law, then he should defend the principle and how it also applies to mask laws. Either way, more work is needed here.

Subs is just engaging in his usual tu quoque fallacy dance, but if you start from the premise that he isn't, then does he like the law or not? It's not enough to shout "HYPOCRITESSSSASSDS:LIKJSKJLKJ:LSKJ:LDKJ:LKJ!" and call it a day.

[_Gunnar]

Subs is just engaging in his usual tu quoque fallacy dance, but if you start from the premise that he isn't, then does he like the law or not? It's not enough to shout "HYPOCRITESSSSASSDS:LIKJSKJLKJ:LSKJ:LDKJ:LKJ!" and call it a day.

Good point, EA. Whether he likes that law or not, his argument simply makes no sense. He probably doesn't care one way or the other. His purpose is just to continue trolling, like he is so wont to do.

I think he knows deep in his soul that Trump has horribly botched our country's pandemic response. Even he doesn't dare try to deny how abysmally Trump has botched it from the very beginning of the crisis.