Kyllo: Taking the 5th on the 4th

Trei, Peter ptrei at
Thu Jul 5 07:40:18 PDT 2001

> From: 	Jim Choate[SMTP:ravage at]
> 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
section 910-17.
"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
would agree
that it is not), it is the law of the land and a requirement, at least in

Peter Trei

More information about the cypherpunks-legacy mailing list