
A brief history of government efforts to stop people from wearing masks - wei_jok
https://qz.com/1721901/hong-kong-anti-mask-law-a-history-of-mask-bans-around-the-world/
======
jpambrun
Montreal did the same thing during student protests in 2012 [1]. It came along
with another special law enacted to restrict protests[2]. Both were later
contested and dropped.

In my opinion that was extremely unproductive. It galvanized protests even
further and the most common chant became "la loi special on s'en calisse"
(roughly "we don't give a shit about your special law") as we were defying it.
In essence, it just eroded police and state authority for an entire
generation. I still strongly feel that I don't have to follow laws that I find
immoral or unethical. I am not sure this is good.

[1]
[https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%A8glement_P-6](https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%A8glement_P-6)

[2]
[https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loi_78_(Qu%C3%A9bec)](https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loi_78_\(Qu%C3%A9bec\))

~~~
ssalka
> I still strongly feel that I don't have to follow laws that I find immoral
> or unethical. I am not sure this is good.

I think that is definitely good. If everyone followed laws simply because
"it's the law" then no one would ever think critically about whether those
laws were morally justifiable or not, or if they did they would shrug it off
because "breaking the law is wrong". But such questions are important to ask,
and while it may be impractical for _everybody_ to do so, I'm glad there are
people like me & you that pay attention to whether the law is actually making
the world better or not.

(obviously, determining whether a law is ethical or not can be very tricky;
you can't just go around breaking laws because you don't agree with them -
there needs to be e.g. clear moral ground indicating that there is some
collective thought that the law is immoral/unethical)

~~~
darawk
On the other hand, if everyone follows only the laws they think are moral,
you're going to have to accept the civil disobedience of those that disagree
with you as well.

~~~
FroshKiller
You’ll have to accept it either way.

------
rjzzleep
A bunch of European countries have this. Some for several decades. Germany has
had it for 3 and while the law states that its punishment is up to one year of
prison, states seem to have in general reduced the sentence to 500-1500 Euros.
[1]

Not really arguing pro or against, but I do find there to be a bit of
hypocrisy in the media coverage.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-
mask_law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-mask_law)

~~~
hutzlibu
In germany we have also a awesome law, that forbids "passive weapons" on
demonstration. Yes, sounds good. Peaceful demonstrators should not have
weapons.

Only that "passive weapons" means all kinds of protections, like helmets,
thick gloves and gas masks. So when he police hits you, how dare you to try to
protect your head or face.

~~~
cheschire
Well, yeah. You choose to wear a helmet because you expect to get hit. If you
didn't expect to get hit, you wouldn't feel the need to wear a helmet.

This is a de-escalation technique that functions well in advance of a
potentially violent situation.

Edit: for people downvoting, I would love to read your opinions too! The down
arrow isn’t a disagreement button. It’s supposed to indicate a person isn’t
contributing to the conversation. Otherwise you’re just enforcing groupthink.

~~~
blevo
good point.

I wear my seatbelt everyday when I drive my car because I'm expecting a car
accident. Strangely enough, it has yet to happen and I have yet to need my
seatbelt. What a waste!

I think I'll just stop wearing it.

~~~
cheschire
There’s an element of intent which your sarcastic response doesn’t really
account for. But yes clearly everyone who wears a helmet to a protest does not
intend to start a physical attack.

That doesn’t mean it’s not an effective preventative measure and de-escalating
technique.

~~~
tomc1985
Police standards and the populace's standards of what constitutes legal
gathering and protest are often quite different, as evidenced by the
unnecessarily harsh deployments against protesters as seen in Hong Kong and
less recently in the US. More often than not, police forces make the first
move in otherwise legitimate protests either with direct oppression, false-
flag tactics, or unnecessary displays of force (or potential force).

A helmet is entirely necessary in peaceful protests because the authorities
resisting the demands of the protest do not play fair.

------
sebastianconcpt
_At its core, face mask bans pose a question about power: who gets to wield
it, and who gets to place limits on it. The masked person can look but not be
seen—an enormous and liberating power particularly in today’s age of
surveillance. For the state and those in authority, the mask represents a
threat because their power is in part drawn from knowing exactly who you are.

For many in Hong Kong, the face mask ban is a reminder of the asymmetrical
balance of power that they are protesting so hard against. While citizens are
now prohibited from wearing masks in public assemblies, police officers will
continue to be able to conceal their identities_

~~~
5trokerac3
> The masked person can look but not be seen—an enormous and liberating power
> particularly in today’s age of surveillance.

It's only liberating if the masked person acts ethically. As we've seen in
Portland, when masked "protesters" commit violence against civilians, it's the
antithesis of "liberating". Remember that the anti-mask laws in the US south
were enacted to limit the nefarious actions of the Klan.

IMO, HK has gone so far that the masks are a fake sense of security. The
police will drag you off, mask and all, and know exactly who you are. Either
the HK people have to accept using guerrilla tactics or they will eventually
be swallowed by the CCP.

~~~
baud147258
Here in France, at most protests you'd find groups of masked 'protestors' who
usually have nothing to do with the protest and are just here for acts of
violence against the police and random acts of degradation and looting

~~~
5trokerac3
Don't forget masked "protesters" who are actually police infiltrators
attempting to turn a protest violent.

~~~
dobleboble
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_provocateur](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_provocateur)

------
Merrill
I don't recall the use of masks being prevalent during either the anti-Vietnam
War demonstrations or the Civil Rights demonstrations of the '50s and '60s.

The adoption of masks is probably driven by the digital imaging chip and the
ubiquity of digital photos and videos. If the police don't image you, your
friends and the media probably will.

~~~
taneq
I've seen multiple reports during the current round of Hong Kong riots of
China sympathizers aggressively filming the faces of protesters. The whole
"we'll get a photo of you protesting and then deal with you later" thing is a
central theme in these protests.

~~~
ackbar03
Aggressively filming protestors? Are you sure?

[https://video.h5.weibo.cn/1034:4423697482642911/442369763922...](https://video.h5.weibo.cn/1034:4423697482642911/4423697639229801)

I really don't understand why hackernews is so extremely one-sided on this
issue.

Edit: yeah there we go, down voted immediately.

~~~
muxator
Can someone please give some context on that video? Who's the boy? What is
everyone doing? The video is creepy.

~~~
ackbar03
As bakuninsbart says above, yes. These are the "journalists" that produce most
of the news you see regarding the protests on the streets. Go search for more
live feeds to seem more of these "journalists" in general being a nuisance and
aggressively filming the police to catch and report of every single mis-step.
Trust me, its not the protestors that are aggressively being filmed.

And to add more context in an unbiased way. Man in white is white collar
worker in central district. I don't know if he's done anything to provoke
protesters as pretext.

"journalists" being a general nuisance, possibly trying to provoke him. He
says something inaudible, something like "are you a journalist" or "what are
you reporting on" or generally along the lines of wtf are you doing.

Journalist starts taunting him, saying he can't understand him. He leaves for
the office with people swearing and shouting profanity. He turns around and
says "we are all chinese people". More swearing. Some "journalist" closes the
door and prevents him from entering. Some masked guy comes out of know where
to hit him. Granted he wasn't looking to do serious damage but still a dick
move and uncalled for. The guy goes in and someone throws an umbrella at his
head. Journalists rush after him after pausing for a while probably because
they don't know what else to do.

Glorious isn't it

~~~
verall
>Trust me

Do you attend the protests and view these or other activities yourself? Or
just reporting on Twitter?

Journalists are helping keep everyone safe, by filming, which discourages most
from violence, on both sides. They film both police and protestors.

Just do understand that for many HKers, they believe this is a fight where
losing means what happens to Uighurs and Tibetans happens to them.

------
pionerkotik
Estonia has had a mask ban since around 2008 I think, after the Bronze Night
riots. [1]

This does produce ridiculous results occasionally. My friend was briefly
detained by the police for wearing a ski mask on a long winter walk. It was
-25°C outside.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronze_Night](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronze_Night)

------
kawsper
In Denmark police will video record demonstrators face really close by, some
suspect they use it for feeding facedetection from Palantir.

Disguising your face is also illegal in Denmark.

~~~
runj__
Yeah, it's not weird that the laws are coming now that the police (and by
extension the government) have the technology to actually use our faces.

The protestors in Hong Kong really do have a reason to protect their
identities from China, so do (peaceful) protestors from any state. Freedom of
speech should be allowed for anonymous persons as well.

~~~
mrobot
HK protesters are peaceful?

~~~
0_gravitas
Exceptionally so, especially when compared to some "protests" seen in the US
and some other "First World" countries, and the stakes of those protests are
also usually quite low compared to HK. I've actually been extremely surprised
at the restraint shown.

~~~
hktruth
Not true. Just in the past few hours:

Bank set on fire:
[https://twitter.com/YuxuanMichael/status/1180140543973580800](https://twitter.com/YuxuanMichael/status/1180140543973580800)

Train with passengers on board attacked:
[https://twitter.com/liamstone_19/status/1180188091312558081](https://twitter.com/liamstone_19/status/1180188091312558081)

Mob beat up one person:
[https://twitter.com/liamstone_19/status/1180175432236195840](https://twitter.com/liamstone_19/status/1180175432236195840)

Undercover officer petrol bombed:
[https://twitter.com/BMMRobertson/status/1180126411169894400](https://twitter.com/BMMRobertson/status/1180126411169894400)

~~~
verall
> Undercover officer petrol bombed

That is literally the video of the _off duty cop_ shooting a 14 year old in
the leg. The mob that attacked him with sticks and petrol bombs were in
response to him discharging a firearm in an area that crowded, and hitting a
young teenager. What kind of misinformation are you trying to spread? Do you
post Twitter instead of news because you are afraid of people hearing the
whole story?

[https://www.hongkongfp.com/2019/10/04/breaking-man-shot-
off-...](https://www.hongkongfp.com/2019/10/04/breaking-man-shot-off-duty-
hong-kong-police-officer-protesters-attack-vehicle/)

~~~
hktruth
Sounds like you're justifying the mob's response, which is the attempted
murder of a police officer.

Nobody knows yet, at least no reports of, why the firearm was discharged.
Maybe it was accidental. Maybe it was deliberate. Mob justice is not the
answer.

By the way, you link to Hong Kong Free Press - give me a break. I wouldn't
call them Fake News but they are very biased.

They are similar to the NY Times who literally are fake news. The NY Times had
the audacity to claim an 18 year old who was shot a few days ago was unarmed.

[https://twitter.com/maodunzedong/status/1179797585638445057](https://twitter.com/maodunzedong/status/1179797585638445057)

Well everyone here on HackerNews can use their own eyes and see what the NY
Times failed to see. An armed protestor (with the blue board) beating an
officer on the ground and getting shot after he struck another officer who had
his weapon drawn.

[https://twitter.com/qingqingparis/status/1179736413534744576](https://twitter.com/qingqingparis/status/1179736413534744576)

~~~
verall
It sounds like you're justifying the attempted murder of a child.

HKFP might be biased towards democracy and freedom of the press, but not as
biased as posting shill Twitter accounts.

The NYT uses unarmed in the American sense of the word - the 18 year old was
_not_ carrying a firearm.

I can scroll through Reddit and find 10s of examples of police doing the same
to protestors, and yet as someone that has actually gone, the real HK police
seem very professional in the face of a difficult job. _Other_ police and gang
members that are enlisted to help during the night on the other hand...

Are you up posting from 2AM-6AM because of insomnia, or because you post from
an armchair in a different timezone?

It seems to me like if it were your country, and you had no $$ or foreign
passport to hide, you would have a different opinion.

------
jkaptur
Keep in mind that facial recognition is probably only one part of a modern
identification pipeline. There's every reason to think that some sort of gait
signature, history of clothing purchases, and cellular data could be combined
to identify a person with some level of confidence, to say nothing of simply
blanketing a city with enough cameras to "rewind" back to when the person
didn't have the mask on.

~~~
Invictus0
Gait detection not likely to be useful in a massive crowd. Clothes are not
custom, change over time, and can't be used to identify someone because they
aren't linked to an identity (Joe buys John a shirt as a gift; John buys his
son a shirt; etc.). I suppose rewinding is possible but the computational cost
of doing this for thousands of people is probably immense.

~~~
seph-reed
Not with eye in the sky tech.

------
the-dude
The Netherlands has introduced a ban on face-covering masks this year, but the
ban is restricted to public places like public transport, schools and
governmental institutions.

Although the current interest is probably related to HK, the ban in The
Netherlands seems to be related to the introduction of the
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burqa](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burqa) in
the public domain.

~~~
vinay427
Probably still better than Ticino in Switzerland, which banned face-coverings
in public to apparently target burqas but instead of making setting-dependent
exceptions, made exceptions for health and safety (reasonable) as well as
local festivals (i.e. protecting some traditions but not others).

[https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/ticino-burka-ban-hits-
football-...](https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/ticino-burka-ban-hits-football-
fans-the-hardest/44306466)

------
Miner49er
There's been a lot of talk in the U.S. of anti-mask legislation because of
antifascists. A federal bill: [https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-
congress/house-bill/6054...](https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-
congress/house-bill/6054/text)

There's also been a lot of talk at local levels.

------
josh_fyi
The article makes good pro-mask points. But--as is not mentioned in the
article--some such laws have been passed to stop violence from groups like the
Ku Klux Klan.

~~~
bobwaycott
This particular point was very uncompelling and lazy (to be clear, I'm
pointing the finger at the article, not _you_ ).

The Klan didn't get away with horrific acts of violence because they were
legally allowed to wear masks—they got away with it because it was socially
acceptable to terrorize, beat up, lynch, and kill people who were not WASPs.
The police and other civic leaders were often members, and even when they
weren't, they had tacit and sometimes direct alliances with Klan members. This
led to law enforcement looking the other way when violent acts occurred, and
they simply did not enforce _plenty_ of existing laws that made the Klan's
violent behaviors already illegal. Plenty of violence occurred without masks
on. And even when the masks were on, law enforcement had more than enough
cause to arrest people and unmask them.

Arresting, prosecuting, and convicting individuals who engaged in already-
illegal acts of racially motivated violence is what stopped Klan violence.
Beyond that, brave infiltration efforts to expose their inner workings and
publicizing membership lists contributed further. An endless stream of
newspaper articles documenting and decrying Klan activity as un-American
helped, too.

Yes, the anonymity provided by the hoods _emboldened_ horrible people to
threaten and intimidate others, as well as commit horrific acts of violence.
_But the violence happened because it was allowed_. Suggesting anti-mask laws
stopped the Klan only whitewashes the past—and absolves political leaders, law
enforcement, and American society itself, of their central role in allowing
that violence to happen for decades. Klan violence didn't stop because masks
became illegal—it stopped when people refused to continue looking the other
way. And it took way too long for that to happen.

~~~
ufmace
That's mostly true, but I think you're going a little too hard against the
role of the anti-mask laws. Nobody is saying they were the main weapon against
the Klan or were essential or anything like that. They were a useful weapon
against them though.

I don't have solid sources on this, but I'm pretty sure the masks were most
useful for Plausible Deniability. Local officials didn't really want to fight
the Klan, true. They still had to answer to State and Federal officials and
out-of-state newspapers though. Klan members wearing masks allow them to claim
to anybody asking tough questions that they can't do anything more against
those people because they don't know who they are. (And allow them to deny
some of them are infact members)

It's often tough to discuss logistics issues like this on boards. Everybody
wants to find One Big Reason for something, and declare every other reason
irrelevant. In reality, most large efforts to solve large issues require lots
of different tactics. Often, no one tactic is "key" or "essential", but they
all help out a little to achieve a goal. Taking away any one won't doom you or
anything, but it will make things take a little longer and go a little harder.

~~~
bobwaycott
I’ll leave you with some quick thoughts:

— I wasn’t searching for one big reason, and I wasn’t declaring all other
reasons irrelevant. I provided several reasons that are exceedingly well
documented in Klan-focused histories for the decline of Klan violence
(seriously, go read some histories and see how prominently mask laws play in
the events).

— Alabama passed the first anti-mask law in the South in 1949—roughly 20 years
after the national (2nd) Klan and its violent activities had been exposed and
its membership severely dwindled (turning the Klan into a splintered group of
uncoordinated and smaller local and state groups).

— The post-WW2 (3rd) Klan had alliances all the way up the local, county, and
_state-level_ political and legal ladder. They had direct alliances with
_governors_. Local officials weren’t having to deny anything, because there
was rarely anyone to answer to higher up the chain. In the states this
occurred, hooded Klansmen weren’t really a thing like the 2nd Klan, and the
violence continued without masks. The feds didn’t get involved until _way
late_ —FBI and the like cared about chasing communists more than they did Klan
violence when it mattered.

— The 3rd Klan became a notable and present force of violence and intimidation
throughout the South _after_ the Alabama anti-mask law (and the other state
laws that followed)

— The Klan robes and hoods most people envision were a staple of the 2nd Klan,
and basically copied the costumes in _Birth of a Nation_ —that is, 20+ years
_before_ mask laws (when they might have been helpful; at that time Klan
membership numbered 3M-6M).

— The first and second Klan were organized and national. The third Klan was
local and state specific, and never reached the membership levels of the
former—yet mask laws didn’t stop Klan violence during this period.

— Alabama is a funny example—it passed the first Southern mask law thanks to a
Klan-hating governor, and it later had a Klan-allied governor.

By the way, this period and the issues society struggled with was pretty much
the focus of my graduate school work, and years of study since.

~~~
ufmace
Well that's a lot of interesting detail, thanks! If they were indeed passed
after the fall of the generation of the Klan that liked to use masks, then why
did anyone bother to pass them? Had it gotten to the point of just virtue-
signaling how against the Klan they were?

~~~
bobwaycott
It’s complicated? I don’t think it’d be fair to call it virtue-signaling in a
blanket fashion, no. Despite the overwhelming decline of 2nd Klan membership
across the country, racism was still deeply entrenched in American society.
Most Americans in heavily racist areas saw this as normal. A minority
disagreed, and some were in positions of power to act on those convictions.

I believe it’s more than fair to interpret the mask laws as being fueled by
recognition (by some) that times were changing, and a desire to avoid
_returning_ to the hooded times of the 2nd Klan. They were likely interested
in preventing hooded Klan marches and intimidation acts—for example, Georgia’s
1951 mask law came a couple years after a group of hooded Klansmen stood
outside a polling place to deter black citizens from voting, iirc.

I also think it’s wise to keep that interpretation balanced by recognizing
that while perhaps not quite virtue-signaling, the mask laws—when viewed
alongside the horrible racist violence allowed in the states that had mask
laws—were passed by some people who wanted to unmask the Klan, and others who
realized it was politically expedient to be seen doing so. In some
cases—notably those states who allowed post-1954 Civil Rights-era violence and
allied with local Klans—it provided an appearance of doing something, while
then turning a blind eye toward the mask-free violence occurring in their
states, and forging alliances with local Klan members.

Ultimately, to understand the period, its actors, and their motivations, we’re
left digging through whatever records exist of public arguments made at the
time for the mask laws, and looking carefully at who made the arguments, and
how those arguments square with their actions in their states. Sadly, I’m not
sure if there are many publicly available records online of that sort for
someone to dig through.

------
imtringued
Governments want to secure their ability to remove your eyeballs with the help
of 40mm grenade launchers that shoot "non lethal" rubber projectiles.

------
hprotagonist
one of my favorite historical antecedents is a document from the 12th century
in london in which local businessmen and authorities are complaining about the
hooded apprentices who get off work, get drunk, and start trouble in the
streets.

Some things are truly eternal.

[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1584317/Hoodies-
were...](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1584317/Hoodies-were-the-
scourge-of-Medieval-London.html)

------
emptybits
From the article: "Does heavy make-up count as a mask?"

Near-future: "Does a full-facial e-ink tattoo, dynamically reconfigurable,
count as a mask?"

~~~
lrg
Facial paint is included in the loose definition of "facial covering" for the
HK anti-mask law

~~~
emptybits
Thus, my question about tattoos. :-)

~~~
izzydata
If you tattooed your whole face you are basically making yourself more easily
identifiable. You can't take it off so you are now the guy with the full face
tattoo.

But I doubt they could outlaw your face. What are they going to do? Cut your
face off?

~~~
emptybits
I suggested a full-face e-ink tattoo, dynamically reconfigurable. A
programmable tattoo. Turn it on. Turn it off. Raise your cheekbones. Add a
third eye. Or wrinkles and freckles and a bruise. Turn on some lip gloss and
eye shadow. Change your skin tone. Confound image processing. Have some fun.

> If you tattooed your whole face you are basically making yourself more
> easily identifiable.

Turn it on and off and configure it as desired. E-pigment sits under your
skin. Unlike a mask, it's part of you but only when you want it to be. I think
this could reduce identifiability.

~~~
ralfd
E-ink tattoos are as real as my girlfriend.

------
greggman2
Wow, I can't imagine that going over here in Japan. Nearly the entire
population wears masks when sick or when trying to avoid getting sick. They're
sold in every convenience store, all different kinds, paper, cloth, foam, with
or without various medicinal stuff added.

They are also a problem for anyone who has an iPhone with FaceID

------
immmmmm
If your goal is to evade biometric recognition by your local oppressive
government: try makeup:) I work in the field and can tell you that 1) it’s
cheap and easy 2) no presents sensor technology can detect it 3) detection
algorithms will be spoofed and confused 99% of the time if well done. And it’s
not a mask ;)

~~~
hajile
Gas masks deal with CS gas (I find it ironic that CS gas is banned by the
Geneva conventions, but using it against civilians is fine).

Goggles reduce the chances of eye injury due to debris, rubber bullets, police
batons, etc. A decent face mask extends this protection to the rest of the
face.

~~~
C1sc0cat
As are dum dum bullets - which is even weirder

~~~
Merrill
Soft, expanding bullets stop more easily when they hit something. Full metal
jacket military bullets penetrate things like auto bodies, walls, etc, and
pose a greater threat to innocent bystanders.

Plus, the real reason is that in war, wounding the other side is better than
killing, since the wounded have to be treated, evacuated, supported, etc., and
their presence is demoralizing to the enemy.

~~~
C1sc0cat
Its an offence against the Geneva convention, NATO militaries are worried they
will be accused of war crimes if they introduce bullets that could be
considered dum dums

~~~
Merrill
Actually the 1899 Hague Convention, and the US is not a signatory. The US
reserves the right to use expanding bullets when there is a clear military
necessity. Until 2010 the prohibition only applied to warfare between military
units, not to combat with irregular or civilians units.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanding_bullet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanding_bullet)

------
jessriedel
Noticeably absent from this discussion: Anti-mask laws as a method to combat
terrorism from the Ku Klux Klan. Presumably no one is talking about it because
it complicates the simple protestors-good/government-bad story.

> Many anti-mask laws date back to the mid-20th century when states and
> municipalities, passed them to stop the violent activities of the Ku Klux
> Klan, whose members typically wore hoods of white linen to conceal their
> identities....

> A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
> Circuit upheld a New York law on the ground that wearing a Ku Klux Klan mask
> did not convey a protected message beyond that conveyed by wearing a hood
> and robe.[2] Other courts have struck down anti-mask laws. For example,
> Tennessee and Florida state laws have been invalidated on the grounds that
> they were unconstitutionally broad.[10] An ordinance in Goshen, Indiana, was
> struck down based on First Amendment doctrine that specifically protects
> anonymous speech and anonymous association, especially for unpopular groups
> like the KKK.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-
mask_law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-mask_law)

> In 1845 New York made it illegal to appear “disguised and armed.” Most anti-
> mask laws [in the US] were passed, however, in response to the Ku Klux Klan,
> whose members used masks to hide their identities as they terrorized their
> victims.

[https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1169/anti-
mask-...](https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1169/anti-mask-laws)

> In the United States, anti-mask laws were first passed in the 19th century
> to combat various threats of violence—among them, the killing of Hudson
> Valley landlords by tenant farmers who dressed up as American Indians, and
> also the growing violence of the Ku Klux Klan.

[http://jtl.columbia.edu/the-inexorable-anti-mask-
movement/](http://jtl.columbia.edu/the-inexorable-anti-mask-movement/)

Here's a serious analysis of how one might tailor an anti-mask law while
avoiding the most serious free-speech issues, at least in the narrow sense of
passing constitutional muster in the US.

[https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=30...](https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3009&context=flr)

~~~
Wohlf
This rarely gets mentioned, same as the racist history of gun control.

------
mandelbrotwurst
One bit of this that I've always found interesting is that it makes it just a
little bit harder to suppress dissent in cities in colder climates.

Of course, cold tends to have a literal "chilling effect" on activity as well
(see: crime rates in summer)!

------
theboulevardier
The UK police have been able to do this for a while. I haven't been involved
in activism for years now, but if I remember correctly they used to be able to
make people remove face masks within a particular area during demonstrations.

------
C1sc0cat
A bit lacking, Bans on masks started in renaissance Europe , with people only
being allowed to wear them during carnival.

------
pseingatl
The Republic of Venice restricted the use of masks in the 18th century.
Nothing new here.

------
yoyoyooma
Just wear a burqa instead, they wouldn't dare complaining about it...

