@skullhoney Who gets to decide if the masked person has legitimate reasons for wearing a mask and is either deserving of punishment or belonging to a sacred caste? How are we defining *masked*? How are we defining *harassment*? So many questions, but let's not worry about them because the authorities are making a law so we can all be *safe.*
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Asking for a friend.
@KeepTakingTheSoma I was only thinking of the masked men attacking women speaking in defense of their rights. I'm unfamiliar with the Latin you used 🤷♀️
@skullhoney You raise an interesting idea. It's funny that we have concerns about people wearing masks to conceal their identity, but we were supposed to cheer for wearing masks when they *protected* us from *covid* so we have to be clear if masks are a *good thing* or a *bad thing* or just *a thing.* Is context important? That speaks to intent, and we need to be careful when deciding on intent. The current orthodoxy is to decide intent based on the tribe (my tribe good, other tribe evil) which is why we have some public protests that are condemned and others that are *mostly peaceful* depending on the political leanings of those reporting. I'm not defending anti-social behaviour. I'm just pointing out the inconsistencies we've seen.
The Latin is from Juvenal. A lot of his writing is as relevant today as when he wrote it.