On Wearing Masks at "Raids" or Demos

RogerB

Crusader
This note may only apply to New York, dunno about that, but certainly is something for you guys inclined to wear masks etc., at any organized demonstration etc.

This from this morning's Wall Street Journal link here:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...=88888&mod=WSJ_hps_sections_newyork#printMode

SEPTEMBER 20, 2011
Rare Charge Is Unmasked
By SEAN GARDINER And JESSICA FIRGER
New York City police monitoring a social media-fueled protest in Manhattan's Financial District have charged demonstrators with violating an obscure, 150-year-old state statute that bans masked gatherings.

Since Saturday, five people connected with the protest to "occupy" Wall Street have been issued a violation for running afoul of the antimask law, according to police.

"People here are very acutely aware of it now because of the arrests," Laura MacAuley, a spokeswoman for the social media-fueled event, said Monday.

The protest against U.S. banking institutions began Saturday, drawing hundreds from across the country.

Police blocked off several streets in lower Manhattan, directing protesters to Zuccotti Park. On Monday afternoon, sleeping bags, tents and a potluck buffet were set up in the park to accommodate demonstrators.

Among those arrested was Max Hodes, a 28-year-old from Concord, N.H. He said he and a few others wearing bandanas were pulled from a line of unmasked protesters on Saturday morning in front of 40 Wall St. He said he was taken to the 1st Precinct, checked for outstanding arrest warrants and released about three hours later, having been issued a summons for "loitering and wearing [a] mask."

"I was arrested for looking like I ought to be arrested," Mr. Hodes said.
Ms. MacAuley said two others were taken into custody on Monday for writing on the sidewalk with chalk.

Police said only one person was charged with violating anti-graffiti laws, and one person was charged with disorderly conduct.

Oakland, Calif., native Jason Ahmadi, 26 years old, said he was issued a summons for "damage to the sidewalk" after scribbling a Gandhi quote on the concrete near Zuccotti Park.

"The cops asked me what other country I'd rather live in," he said. "I said the point was to make this country better."

New York Police Department spokesman Paul Browne said that in past protests in other cities, demonstrators would "disrupt otherwise peaceful protests by 'masking up,' and engaging in vandalism and confrontations with police. There was an expectation that their bandannas might help them escape identification."

New York's law dates back to 1845, when lawmakers tried to quell uprisings by tenant farmers who "used disguises to attack law enforcement officers," according to a later U.S. Court of Appeals ruling. A dip in the price of wheat left many in debt to landowner Stephen Van Rensselaer IV.

After Mr. Rensselaer moved to evict tenants, disgruntled farmers disguised themselves as "Indians," dressed in "calico gowns and leather masks" and attacked agents of the landlords. The court papers said the tactics adopted by these rebel groups ranged from "tarring and feathering" to murder, including a sheriff.

The law was amended in 1965 to prevent masked gatherings of two or more people, with a significant exception: "a masquerade party or like entertainment." It received substantial attention in 1999 when, on the basis of the law, the city rejected a request from splinter group of the Ku Klux Klan to hold a masked protest in Manhattan.

Eugene O'Donnell, a professor of police science at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, said arrests for violating the antimask laws are uncommon.

"It's just another tool that police have if they need to use it," he said. "Cops figure that if you're covering your face [at a protest], it's probably not for a good reason."

Donna Lieberman, executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, agreed that enforcement is rare but said the arrests occur almost exclusively during political protests.

She said civil libertarians have argued that demonstrators should be able to wear masks as part of their right to free speech.

"Unfortunately," Ms. Lieberman said, "the courts have not agreed with us."
 

Rene Descartes

Gold Meritorious Patron
Hmm, I wonder what would happen if people protested in NY and wore the masks so that they covered the back of their head instead of their face?

I'm sure there are ways to get around the techincality such as wear a wig and fake beard and maybe even Buddy Holly glasses.

Eye shadow?

Lipstick?

Rd00
 

Gadfly

Crusader
Hmm, I wonder what would happen if people protested in NY and wore the masks so that they covered the back of their head instead of their face?

I'm sure there are ways to get around the techincality such as wear a wig and fake beard and maybe even Buddy Holly glasses.

Eye shadow?

Lipstick?

Rd00

Groucho Marx nose and glasses?

photo
 

skydog

Patron Meritorious
In Connecticut, one could be charged with a felony. This is a fairly recent statute (1982) and was directed against the Ku Klux Klan who were experiencing a rebirth at the time. I am not sure whether it has been used against any of the New Haven protesters but it would be unconstitutional if used to prevent an individual from exercising his or her right to free speech.

Sec. 53-37a. Deprivation of a person's civil rights by person wearing mask or hood: Class D felony. Any person who, with the intent to subject, or cause to be subjected, any other person to the deprivation of any rights, privileges or immunities, secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of this state or of the United States, on account of religion, national origin, alienage, color, race, sex, sexual orientation, blindness or physical disability, violates the provisions of section 46a-58 while wearing a mask, hood or other device designed to conceal the identity of such person shall be guilty of a class D felony.

Sec. 46a-58. (Formerly Sec. 53-34). Deprivation of rights. Desecration of property. Placing of burning cross or noose on property. Penalty. (a) It shall be a discriminatory practice in violation of this section for any person to subject, or cause to be subjected, any other person to the deprivation of any rights, privileges or immunities, secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of this state or of the United States, on account of religion, national origin, alienage, color, race, sex, sexual orientation, blindness or physical disability.

(b) Any person who intentionally desecrates any public property, monument or structure, or any religious object, symbol or house of religious worship, or any cemetery, or any private structure not owned by such person, shall be in violation of subsection (a) of this section. For the purposes of this subsection, "desecrate" means to mar, deface or damage as a demonstration of irreverence or contempt.

(c) Any person who places a burning cross or a simulation thereof on any public property, or on any private property without the written consent of the owner, shall be in violation of subsection (a) of this section.

(d) Any person who places a noose or a simulation thereof on any public property, or on any private property without the written consent of the owner, and with intent to intimidate or harass any other person on account of religion, national origin, alienage, color, race, sex, sexual orientation, blindness or physical disability, shall be in violation of subsection (a) of this section.

(e) Any person who violates any provision of this section shall be guilty of a class A misdemeanor, except that if property is damaged as a consequence of such violation in an amount in excess of one thousand dollars, such person shall be guilty of a class D felony.
 

Gadfly

Crusader
In Connecticut, one could be charged with a felony. This is a fairly recent statute (1982) and was directed against the Ku Klux Klan who were experiencing a rebirth at the time. I am not sure whether it has been used against any of the New Haven protesters but it would be unconstitutional if used to prevent an individual from exercising his or her right to free speech.

Sec. 53-37a. Deprivation of a person's civil rights by person wearing mask or hood: Class D felony. Any person who, with the intent to subject, or cause to be subjected, any other person to the deprivation of any rights, privileges or immunities, secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of this state or of the United States, on account of religion, national origin, alienage, color, race, sex, sexual orientation, blindness or physical disability, violates the provisions of section 46a-58 while wearing a mask, hood or other device designed to conceal the identity of such person shall be guilty of a class D felony.

Sec. 46a-58. (Formerly Sec. 53-34). Deprivation of rights. Desecration of property. Placing of burning cross or noose on property. Penalty. (a) It shall be a discriminatory practice in violation of this section for any person to subject, or cause to be subjected, any other person to the deprivation of any rights, privileges or immunities, secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of this state or of the United States, on account of religion, national origin, alienage, color, race, sex, sexual orientation, blindness or physical disability.

(b) Any person who intentionally desecrates any public property, monument or structure, or any religious object, symbol or house of religious worship, or any cemetery, or any private structure not owned by such person, shall be in violation of subsection (a) of this section. For the purposes of this subsection, "desecrate" means to mar, deface or damage as a demonstration of irreverence or contempt.

(c) Any person who places a burning cross or a simulation thereof on any public property, or on any private property without the written consent of the owner, shall be in violation of subsection (a) of this section.

(d) Any person who places a noose or a simulation thereof on any public property, or on any private property without the written consent of the owner, and with intent to intimidate or harass any other person on account of religion, national origin, alienage, color, race, sex, sexual orientation, blindness or physical disability, shall be in violation of subsection (a) of this section.

(e) Any person who violates any provision of this section shall be guilty of a class A misdemeanor, except that if property is damaged as a consequence of such violation in an amount in excess of one thousand dollars, such person shall be guilty of a class D felony.

It seems that if you are wearing a mask at an entirely peaceful demonstration that there would be nothing to worry about.

BUT, the Church of Scientology is a manipulative group of scumbags. They will try to "push buttons", "annoy protesters", and work very hard to get one of the protesters to make a "hateful comment" or incite a protester to physical violence against a member of Scientology. THEN, especially if they get it on video and have witnesses (they always have witnesses), they can "show" that the protester "wore a mask while also depriving somebody of a basic right".

That is why it is very important to keep your cool around these manipulative scum-suckers. They try to prod you into committing "some crime", so that they can then "use it against you". This is standard Hubbard GO/OSA "tech". Of course the "crime" would never exist without their machinations. :duh:

Somebody needs to put together a very succinct booklet, with many examples, explaining exactly how the Church of Scientology plans and does this sort of thing. And, spread it far and wide to all media outlets, judges, state governments, and law enforcement agencies. This would be a "dead agent pack" in reverse! :thumbsup:

I wish I would win the lottery, because then I would do it myself.
 
Last edited:

Auditor's Toad

Clear as Mud
OMG ! I've seen women with thick make-up, crazy lip gloss, mascara, fake eyelashes, tats for eyebrows and those gals that could be hauled off in cuffs for wearing a mask ........and some cross dressing guys, too!
 

GoNuclear

Gold Meritorious Patron
Horseshitistic laws about masks are meant to be broken. With all the suveilance cameras now that the oinksters have out, masks are a great idea, especially in picketing the fed or the IRS. I doubt that any mask law will be enforced against those picketing Cof$, unless some local Cof$ honcho has influence with the local oinksters or oinkstablishment, and more and more, oinksters and the oinkstablishment see the Cof$'ers for the pathetic liars and whiners that they are.

Pete
 
Top