On Tue, 3 Jul 2001, Jim Choate wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jul 2001, Tim May wrote:
The whole issue of "going masked" is a murky one, legally.
No, it isn't. While police certainly need 'probably cause' to institute a search there are NO (zero, nadah, nil, nul, none) requirements on citizens to wear any particular part or type of clothing (or not wear it even). Any such law would violate the 1st.
So I can go out in public nude, and not expect to be arrested? Wrong. While, in absolute terms, the right to free expression ought to include the right to nudity, in practice it does not. As a male, I am *required*, by the state, to wear something that covers up the dangly bits when I go out in public. The state also refuses to license establishments to serve food unless those establishments have a clear policy refusing admittance to barefoot people. Does the state require me to wear shoes, or is it their puppets the shopkeepers who do so? Does it matter? NO. Shoes are also required for all riders of state-sponsored public transit. I support the right of antisocial people to smear themselves with green jello and run naked with scissors around the block flapping their arms and shouting "splee three frooks!" if they want to, but the state does not agree. There are also types of clothing that I am forbidden by the state to wear; I had a friend in Kansas City who cross-dressed once and got busted for -- I kid you not -- "Intent to defraud." Since he was wearing a full beard at the time, I don't know anyone who'd have fallen for his supposed fraud, but let us just say that if you are a man dressed in women's clothing, the law enforcement agencies of a lot of places will go out of their way to find a law to charge you with. Unconstitutional? Sure. Standard Practice? Absolutely. Don't go spouting off that these laws *don't* exist just because they *ought* not exist. Someone who doesn't know you may actually believe you and wind up in jail. Bear