Face mask bill must strike a delicate balance
Amid ongoing debates about public safety and individual rights, the Nassau County Legislature is poised to make a significant decision that could have an impact on both.
Republican Legislator Mazi Pilip has proposed a bill that would make the county one of the first in the metropolitan area to ban face masks that conceal a wearer’s identity.
The proposal, backed by all 12 Republican county legislators, aims to unmask those responsible for violent acts during protests, imposing fines of up to $1,000 and potential jail time for violators.
A similar measure was proposed by State Sen. Steve Rhoads last month, after six young men wearing masks attacked another man at the Academy Charter School graduation at Hofstra University.
The Pilip bill is a reaction to violence involving people wearing masks in recent months during protests at universities including Columbia, George Washington and Yale. Pilip said that when they cover their faces, people can act as brazenly as they wish, which is unacceptable, and the idea behind the proposal is to curb violence and hold perpetrators accountable.
A laudable goal — but this well-meaning legislation may compromise public health and civil liberties, particularly when face masks are used as intended. They became an essential public health tool during the coronavirus pandemic, and are not just a means of personal protection, but also a potential collective shield that helps reduce the transmission of airborne viruses.
Several studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of masks in curbing the spread of infectious diseases, thereby saving lives. To undermine this practice, even with the pandemic seemingly behind us, could have dire consequences for public health, especially as we ponder future outbreaks of other diseases.
The proposed bill includes exemptions for those wearing masks for health or religious reasons, but the enforcement of those exemptions would raise significant concerns. While the Republican presiding officer of the County Legislature, Howard Kopel, said he doubted anyone would intervene when an older person wears a mask for health reasons, there appear to be broader worries. The New York Civil Liberties Union has voiced concerns that the legislation paints a target on the backs of people of color, and protesters who disagree with government policies.
Those sentiments are echoed by Democratic Legislator Debra Mulé, who highlights what she sees as the ambiguity surrounding the bill’s implementation and enforcement.
Historical and current events have shown that laws with vague enforcement guidelines often disproportionately impact marginalized communities. Even the appearance that some were being unfairly targeted by a face mask law would not only undermine trust in public institutions, but also exacerbate existing social and racial tensions.
Gov. Kathy Hochul’s consideration of a mask ban on New York City transit, and similar proposals from other state legislators, indicate a broader trend toward restricting mask use that, if taken up by individual counties as well and not carefully managed, could become the focus of endless litigation and, yes, masked protests. Legislators’ focus should instead be on fostering a safe environment without infringing on individual rights or compromising public health. Rather than outright bans, there should be a nuanced approach that balances safety with the right to wear masks for legitimate reasons.
Enhancing security measures at protests, improving surveillance to identify perpetrators of violence without compromising the anonymity of peaceful demonstrators, and fostering better communication between law enforcement and the public could be more effective strategies.
Legislation that restricts the use of masks must be carefully crafted to avoid unintended consequences that affect citizens’ freedoms or can be seen as discriminatory. As the County Legislature considers Pilip’s bill before a scheduled Aug. 5 vote, it should seek input from a wide range of stakeholders before finalizing it, in an effort to protect both public safety and individual rights.
