Comments on social networking posts

Between comments from Protestant Church members worrying about my salvation and lack of a belief in Christ because I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and my conservative friends passing along the latest conspiracy theory or chain-letter sob story, even looking at social networking programs has become somewhat of a chore. The only thing that keeps me looking is to see which of my friends and acquaintances have died recently and to keep up with those of my children who still post. I almost never post anything about me or my personal life on social networking. The only exceptions are photos that I post to Instagram to a very small audience. 

I have a substantial social networking presence despite my antipathy to social networking because of my blogs. I hardly ever get substantial comments on any of my blogs no matter what I write. Genealogy is hardly a controversial subject and neither is my photography. Some of the people I know get long comments that are really tirades on one subject or another. Sometimes when I pass along a post by one of my friends or family members, I get comments calling me a Marxist and claiming that the post is FAKE NEWS always in capital letters. 

Ernest Agyemang Yeboah once said, "We fail to say the right words because we choose to say the wrong words! We choose to say the wrong words because we fail to think about the right words!” Presently, I am caught between the urge to speak my mind and a concern that I would alienate a substantial portion of my friends from the past. I am becoming more and more circumspect in my comments and if I make any at all although I get disgusted with the drivel that gets posted online. 

Here is one example. I live in a smaller town in Utah. I am older and have a medical history that would make catching the COVID-19 virus life-threatening. The people who surround me are either convinced that the whole "virus thing" is a hoax or that wearing a mask is a violation of their "fundamental constitutional rights." Here is a chart showing the progress of the virus here in Utah.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/usa/utah/

We are basically isolated in our home because the people of Utah do not believe there is a problem with over 200,000 people dying in the United States from the COVID-19 virus (as of the date of this post, the number was 203,880). Unbelievably, the government of Utah, six months into a pandemic is still debating back and forth about an appropriate response. In my opinion, this indecision is caused by the huge percentage of the population, including the government people, who do not yet view the pandemic as a public health issue and still think it is a political issue.

I was a trial attorney in Arizona for almost forty years. I have spent most of my life listening to clients and evaluating evidence for lawsuits. I am very familiar with outrageous claims, emotional rants, diatribes, claims that rights have been violated, and all of the other impedimenta of the law. I have handled cases involving hurt feelings and cases involving matters of life and death. In all those years, I cannot say I have ever run across a claim so lacking in any logical or legal support than that someone has a legal right to put my life in danger by failing to wear a cloth facemask. I have extensively read the arguments on both sides of the face mask issue. I do not believe, after years of teaching and arguing cases involving constitutional law that there is anything about the public health practices of isolating actively contagious people or requiring them to wear a face-covering that violates any basic right and certainly nothing in the Constitutional Law of the United States of America. Wearing or not wearing a mask is not a political issue or a political statement. It is a dangerous intrusion on my basic human rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. 

Objections to the wearing a mask usually involve using words such as those quoted in an article entitled, "The Constitution doesn’t have a problem with mask mandates." Here is a quote that expresses what those who claim wearing masks violate their rights usually say:

Mandatory masks violate the First Amendment right to speech, assembly, and especially association and mandatory masks violate a person’s constitutional right to liberty and to make decisions about their own health and bodily integrity.

There is an old legal saying that your right ends where mine begins. Wearing a mask does not limit my freedom of expression. Wearing a mask does not restrict my liberty in any way. The evidence that face masks limit the spread of contagious diseases is overwhelming. Your decision to spread a communicable disease does not rise to the level of a right to liberty. Online, I was able to find 516 Federal Court cases involving the term "face mask." Many of these cases involved facts that did not have anything to do with rights, they were cases where a plaintiff was alleging damage due to an employer refusing to allow the plaintiff to wear a protective facemask in dangerous situations such as welding, and other activities involving potential harm. Another large number of cases had to do with inmates in prison who were ill and required to wear protective masks even when they were not contagious. 

However, the issue of face masks during COVID-19 pandemic has come up in the Federal Court system. The case of United States of America v. Vincent J. Trimarco, Jr. Defendant. 17-CR-583 (JMA) (E.D.N.Y. Sep. 1, 2020). Has some particularly interesting language. The issue of the jury and the defendant wearing face masks was raised as an issue concerning the postponement of the trial. A number of specific constitutional rights were raised concerning the wearing of facemasks and the Court denied all of the defendant's arguments. Here is a summarizing quote from the opinion:

The Court recognizes that proceeding with a trial during an unprecedented global pandemic presents numerous costs, inconveniences, and logistical challenges for all parties involved. Nonetheless, in recent months, the state of New York and the Long Island region, in particular, have experienced significant and sustained improvements in the number of COVID-19 transmissions, hospitalizations, and deaths. Life has slowly begun to approach a return to normalcy in many ways. Just as many businesses have restored their operations while adopting various safety measures, so too must the Court. This encouraging trend has created "a window of opportunity for holding a public trial . . . and it is not clear how long those conditions will maintain." Id. at *2. Public health experts have warned about the possibility of a "second wave" of potential infections in areas where virus conditions have improved. Before that fear materializes, the Court should not squander the opportunity to conduct a trial while utilizing all of the health and safety precautions at its disposal. 

The health and safety precautions mentioned in the case include wearing a face mask. Politicizing a public health issue and endangering my life overcomes my reticence in writing online and posting to social media. This is not a political issue. It is a matter of my own health and safety. Within a few short days, the death toll from the COVID-19 virus will rise dramatically in Utah. I do not want to be one of those who die. 

If you think that your rights are being violated by a public health measure, why don't you stop taking baths during our extreme drought in Utah? Why not stop washing your hands or cleaning your house? Why not stop preparing and cooking your food properly? Stop going to the doctor for your illnesses and abandon every other healthy practice? I realize that because I am old you do not care if I die but I can assure you I do and I can still write. So if you decided to post a comment to this post, be aware that I will respond. Also, if you decided to rant about FAKE NEWS and cite bogus studies about how face masks are harmful, I will respond with research. This is not a political statement, it is a matter of my life and my death.