Kyllo: Taking the 5th on the 4th
ptrei at rsasecurity.com
Thu Jul 5 07:40:18 PDT 2001
> From: Jim Choate[SMTP:ravage at ssz.com]
> 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.
> James Choate
Of course, Choate fails to check facts....
City of Cincinnati
"Wearing of masks or hoods"
no person shall appear on any public way, public property or any place open
to view by the general public wearing a mask, hood, regalia, paraphernalia
or other device which partially or completely covers the face with purpose
to conceal the identity of the wearer.
The provisions of this section shall not apply to:
(1) a person wearing a traditional holiday costume on the occasion of the
(2) a person lawfully engaged in trade or employment or in a sporting
activity where a mask is worn for the purpose of ensuring the physical
safety of the wearer, or because of the nature of the occupation, trade, or
profession or sporting activity.
(3) A person using a mask in a theatrical production or at masquerade balls
or for other entertainment purposes;
(4) a person wearing a gas or medical mask as prescribed for emergencies or
by current medical regulations.
Whoever violates this section is guilty of wearing a mask or hood in public,
a misdemeanor of the fourth
Whether or not Jim thinks this is constitutional (and I and many others
that it is not), it is the law of the land and a requirement, at least in
More information about the cypherpunks-legacy