One of the ideas that Mayor Karen Bass listed that the city could consider in response to the violence outside the Adas Torah synagogue in the Pico-Robertson area is the role of masks in protests.
To be clear, he is not saying that masks at protests should be banned. But for many who listened to her speech at the Museum of Tolerance Monday, it was a choice. A potential mask ban is the focus of news and social media discussion.
It is appropriate that the mayor speaks out against violence between pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian protesters and takes action to prevent it from happening again. Discussions with other city leaders, police and community members may yield useful ideas.
But the mask ban is not one of them.
Such a ban may violate the 1st Amendment right to expression. But beyond the fact that the courts may not allow it, let’s examine why it is not a good idea to use local mask bans.
It is true that masks can obscure the identity of protesters and make it more difficult for law enforcement authorities to identify people who go beyond peaceful protests, engage in violence or other criminal offenses. Masks make it harder to hold offenders accountable. Indeed, some pro-Palestinian protesters outside Sunday synagogues had their faces covered, as did some pro-Israel protesters who tried to dismantle a camp on the UCLA campus in April.
But anonymous protests, like anonymous comments, are also in the tradition of free speech. Americans are no more obliged to show their faces when expressing their opinions than they are to be required to carry identification papers – or display tattoos or other identifying marks on their bodies – if their actions comply with the law. One could argue that hiding a face covering makes a less direct statement than showing one’s name and other identifying information, but that’s a different issue. Those who refuse to identify themselves are not giving up their right to express their opinions.
Moreover, there may be compelling reasons for legitimate protesters to conceal their identities. If they are foreign nationals, for example, they may fear retaliation, including death, from their government.
Americans who speak anonymously or hide their faces may want to avoid police surveillance, and should be able to do so if they do not threaten or cause harm to others or engage in other violations of the law. As government and private companies track people’s movements through license plate readers, traffic cameras, cell phone tracking and other technologies, Americans who value their privacy and rights should not simply give up. reject all high-tech surveillance.
The mask itself has become a political statement and is under the protection of free speech. Don’t forget that lately, wearing a mask in public is not only allowed, but encouraged and often required. Refusal to wear them could theoretically get people arrested (although this rarely happens). The decision to mask people during the COVID-19 pandemic expresses a belief in government policy, personal rights and respect for medical expertise. In some communities across the country where mask mandates are being rejected, stores are posting signs advising shoppers that anyone who comes in wearing a mask will be considered a thief, and will be treated as such — even though the law requires masks in public.
How do law enforcement authorities distinguish between people who wear masks to avoid identification and people who want to avoid catching COVID? The authorities in North Carolina must realize that after implementing a ban on protest masks with health exemptions.
Masks may carry images of foreign flags or the American flag (upside down or right side up), or symbols of hate groups or dangerous ideologies. But the content, no matter how offensive, guarantees protection as long as it does not make anyone fear that they will be harmed.
What about Ku Klux Klan hoods? Isn’t it a mask that hides a person’s identity and gives them impunity for illegal actions?
Some localities and states, including Georgia, have banned protests on the grounds that the KKK has long been used to promote “harassment, intimidation and violence against racial and religious minorities.” The Georgia Supreme Court ruled that its purpose trumped Klan members’ right to associate anonymously. Other courts have struck down anti-mask laws.
Los Angeles doesn’t need to ban masks to protect people’s right to assemble, worship, protest or walk the streets. We are interested to hear what other plans city officials come up with. But he could leave the mask ban off the list.