“Land of the free” is a ubiquitous expression that Americans
use to describe the United States. Presumably those states esteem liberty as a
political value even though it is oxymoronic for a government to voluntarily
limit its own power over the governed. Hence, ratification of the U.S.
Constitution was predicated on a Bill of Rights quickly to follow. Declaring
governmental power to be limited was not enough. That many States have had
“mask laws,” many still on the books as of 2017, testifies as to how invasive
government power can be precisely at the expense of personal liberty wherein no
one is harmed.
In Virginia in late March, 2017, police arrested a man
dressed as the Joker (of the Batman comic/movies). The man “was called in for
walking around town in the creepy clown villain makeup while carrying a sword.”
According to the Virginia criminal code, “It shall be unlawful for any person
over 16 years of age, with the intent to conceal his identity, wear any mask,
hood, or other device, whereby a substantial portion of the face is hidden or
covered, so as to conceal the identity of the wearer, to be or appear in any
public place, or upon any private property in this Commonwealth, without first
having obtained from the owner or tenant thereof consent to do so in writing.”[1]
Incredibly, a tenant with paint (e.g., of a professional or college sports
team) on his or her face could not sit out on the porch of a house or a balcony
of an apartment without the property owner’s written permission. Even indoors,
in the privacy of the person’s residence, such permission would be needed. What
room is there for liberty in a society having such an invasive law in spite of
the fact that no harm to self or others is involved or even imminent? A slogan
cannot hold up to such arduous “facts on the ground.”
Tellingly, the police arresting the man in Virginia “were
apparently less worried about the weapon, and focused instead on [the man’s]
face, which was covered in white paint.”[2]
That priority defies common sense (which is what led me to write this essay).
Clearly, a sword is more of a threat than white makeup on a face. Such makeup
does not even constitute a mask, for the face itself is still recognizable. I
suspect that the law’s true intent comes from the interest that police have in
being able to identify people. That is to say, the law privileges a police
state over individual liberty.
In the context of political protests, such as those of
“Occupy Wall Street” in which New York City police cited protesters wearing
masks, wearing makeup or even a mask can be considered part of the right to
protest (though not free speech, as a mask is not speech). In the “Occupy Wall
Street” protests, the mask used symbolized an aversion to governmental power,
as per the influence of private wealth. Wearing the mask was in itself a protest.
Additionally, the right to protest anonymously may also be
at stake; it is entirely reasonable to fear being identified by government
security agencies simply for protesting peaceably. Furthermore, the requirement
that political protests exclude the wearing of makeup or masks is dogmatic in
the sense of being arbitrary—unless from the standpoint of a government’s
security agency in wanting to be able to identify protesters. Where the
protests are against the government, the government’s interest in identifying
protesters is fraught with difficulty and is rightly to be questioned in terms
of legitimacy.
Liberty not backed up by consistent statutes is meaningless.
Statutes on the books contravening harmless actions such as face-painting makes
a freedom-loving people a living hypocrisy. Some laws are so needlessly
invasive that they cast a pall over rival broad claims of liberty; indeed,
going to the extreme against liberty is itself a red flag, rather than a virtue.
[2] Andy
Campbell, “’Joker’
Charged with Felony for Concealing His Face in Public,” The Huffington
Post, March 25, 2017.
