This event was advertised by Tim Pool since March, and OF COURSE Antifa threatens to burn the place down unless the theater cancelled...

https://www.inquirer.com/news/new-jersey/new-jersey-pitman-broadway-theatre-race-discussion-20190820.html

National law banning the wearing of masks at any public protest, speech, etc., especially political in nature.

That'll curtain 80% of the attendees for ANTIFA.  Once the numbers are cut, the mob mentality will subside as well.

National law banning the wearing of masks at any public protest, speech, etc., especially political in nature.

That'll curtain 80% of the attendees for ANTIFA.  Once the numbers are cut, the mob mentality will subside as well.

I hear that idea floated often but I think that law would have a tough time pasting constitutional muster.

National law banning the wearing of masks at any public protest, speech, etc., especially political in nature.

That'll curtain 80% of the attendees for ANTIFA.  Once the numbers are cut, the mob mentality will subside as well.

Sunlight is indeed the best disinfectant.

They organizers say the event will continue even if a new venue needs to be found. I pray everyone keeps safe.

I hear that idea floated often but I think that law would have a tough time pasting constitutional muster.

How so? I’m not a Constitutional expert, so I’m genuinely curious as to the 1) the questions/tests posed and 2) their interpretations relative to the constitution.

I hear that idea floated often but I think that law would have a tough time pasting constitutional muster.

The law has been passed in many places.  There's nothing unconstitutional about requiring people to uncover their faces.

There's no Constitutional right to anonymity for the purposes of evading identification and subsequent criminal charges for breaking the law.

These are not peaceful protestors being arrested for exercising free speech.  They are violent, counter-protestors intent on shutting down the free speech of others.

How so? I’m not a Constitutional expert, so I’m genuinely curious as to the 1) the questions/tests posed and 2) their interpretations relative to the constitution.

For starters I can't think of any case law that would uphold such a law.

Can you think of any other instances where laws regulate what people can wear in public? The only thing that comes to mind is laws requiring clothing to cover private parts.

The law has been passed in many places.  There's nothing unconstitutional about requiring people to uncover their faces.

There's no Constitutional right to anonymity for the purposes of evading identification and subsequent criminal charges for breaking the law.

These are not peaceful protestors being arrested for exercising free speech.  They are violent, counter-protestors intent on shutting down the free speech of others.

There are laws which make it illegal to wear a mask while committing a crime but not ones that blanket prohibit someone from wearing a facial covering in public.

What I was getting at was any sort of blanket law which criminalized facial coverings on their own, absent any other crime.

For starters I can't think of any case law that would uphold such a law.

Can you think of any other instances where laws regulate what people can wear in public? The only thing that comes to mind is laws requiring clothing to cover private parts.

Do some research.  Having to educate you all the time gets really old.


How long has your Googler been broken?  3?  5 years?

Since 1949, it has been illegal to wear a mask in public in Alabama outside of occasions like Halloween
and Mardi Gras. That sweeping law, and others enacted across the country around that time, was in
direct response to the Ku Klux Klan.

Numerous states have laws governing the wearing of masks in public. In Ohio, for instance, it is illegal
for two or more people to wear “white caps, masks or other disguises” while committing a misdemeanor.
In West Virginia, a broad law prohibiting the wearing of masks includes several exceptions: holiday
costumes and winter sports attire, among others.

California had an expansive anti-mask law for decades, until the Iranian revolution in 1979. Iranian-
Americans in California sued over the law, saying it kept them from shielding their identities for safety
purposes in protests against the new leadership in Iran. The law was struck down.

University of California, Berkeley, also has its own regulation for masks: People who are not affiliated
with the university cannot wear masks on campus for the purpose of intimidation.

UC Berkley enacted that law in direct response to the ANTIFA vandals and thugs showing up to trash the campus and threaten anyone trying to hold an event they disagreed with.

There are laws which make it illegal to wear a mask while committing a crime but not ones that blanket prohibit someone from wearing a facial covering in public.

What I was getting at was any sort of blanket law which criminalized facial coverings on their own, absent any other crime.

that's not what you said...

that's not what you said...

Come on... don't be such a stickler... why would you take his words literally when you surely knew what he "meant". Didn't you?

Come on... don't be such a stickler... why would you take his words literally when you surely knew what he "meant". Didn't you?

a masterdebater shouldn't make that kind of simple mistake
he normally is so noncommittal and vague so he cannot be called out

The law has been passed in many places.  There's nothing unconstitutional about requiring people to uncover their faces.

There's no Constitutional right to anonymity for the purposes of evading identification and subsequent criminal charges for breaking the law.

These are not peaceful protestors being arrested for exercising free speech.  They are violent, counter-protestors intent on shutting down the free speech of others.

What if I follow Islam and a female must cover up (Haji outfit)?  Then  100% of antifa will claim their  Muslims.

When I used to play poker, I never wore shades or a hat.  But did think about wearing a ski mask to the table.

that's not what you said...

He was wrong either way.

Backpedaling didn't help him at all.   

What if I follow Islam and a female must cover up (Haji outfit)?  Then  100% of antifa will claim their  Muslims.

Can't wait for a mob of devout Muslims to face off with them ...   

Even so, that would be cultural & religious appropriation for other purposes.  Very disrespectful, offensive and triggering!!

When I used to play poker, I never wore shades or a hat.  But did think about wearing a ski mask to the table.

What you wear in private is your business.

Can't wait for a mob of devout Muslims to face off with them ...   

Even so, that would be cultural & religious appropriation for other purposes.  Very disrespectful, offensive and triggering!!

They won't do that because we don't have "no go" zones yet.  They're trying to take over via the government seats (senators, reps, leaders, etc...).  They know in the USA because we have the 2a, no go zones won't work, so a diff tactic must be used.  So they're more behaved than the invaders in the UK.

Do some research.  Having to educate you all the time gets really old.

How long has your Googler been broken?  3?  5 years?

Great, everything you posted just supports what I said.
#1 you cited a law with no mention of any case law showing it could stand constitutional test
#2 You cited a law that talked about using masks in connection with another crime - something I specifically said I wasn't referencing
#3 you cited a law that was actually struck down

Feel free to disprove your own claim that I am wrong any time you feel like it.

Plus you are ignoring the burden of proof. Is isn't my job to prove a negative.