Bill Introduced To Ban Protesters From Wearing Hoodies Or Masks

[Suzanimal]

Ever since the Occupy Wall Street movement took off and spread to cities around the world, the Guy Fawkes mask worn by Anonymous “hacktivists” has been an increasingly common sight at protests.

Throughout 2014, Anons could be spotted in sizable numbers on the streets of Ferguson, Beavercreek, New York City and all over the world at anti-police brutality protests.

But now, Oklahoma lawmakers have proposed a bill that would ban activists from wearing masks or even hooded sweatshirts in public spaces.

The chair of the Oklahoma’s public safety committee introduced the bill, state senator Don Barrington (R), said that this would make “it unlawful to wear a mask, hood or covering during the commission of a crime or to intentionally conceal a person’s identity in a public place.”

He says it is to cut down on crime, but it wouldn’t apply to Halloween, parties, State sanctioned parades or “those wearing coverings required by their religious beliefs.”

It also wouldn’t apply to those who wear masks for medical purposes.

So are police going to just start asking people if they have a medical or religious reason to wear a mask? Clearly, the bill is intended to apply to those who are in public space, not at a party, or trick-or-treating, who officers can identify by virtue of their participating in protests. Robbers do not typically go to and from the places they commit crimes, while wearing masks. So invoking the farce of “fighting crime” is a nonsense.

Participating in protests wearing masks would be the only way that officers would know for sure that one was not wearing the mask under the aforementioned exemptions.

If protesters violate this new rule, it would result in a misdemeanor charge along with a fine of $50 to $500. It could even result in imprisonment for up to one year if the courts so decided.

http://countercurrentnews.com/2015/01/bill-introduced-to-ban-protesters-from-wearing-hoodies-or-masks/

[pcosmar]

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/56170000/jpg/_56170411_washington_2006_afp.jpg

[heavenlyboy34]

That first amendment thing is darned effective! :D /sarc

[sparebulb]

I doubt that it would cut down on the real criminal behavior.

https://chickarama.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/swat_team_4131372991.jpg

[invisible]

barrington is a real piece of work (along with his buddy newberry, who is also in a similar position on another influential committee). These guys are responsible for killing lots of good legislation (in committee, so it never actually comes up for a floor vote), and introducing lots of horrible legislation. They are the biggest source of police state type legislation in OK. Luckily they both term out in 2016, but since this is their last term, they can be expected to cram as much bad crap through the State Legislature as possible. Here in OK, we keep a close eye on these two, and have been well aware of this legislation for over a month - it has been the subject of much discussion.

I won't go into much detail about it here, but this legislation is highly flawed, and as written, is unenforceable. It has a loophole that will make it impossible for it to hold up in a court of law. In addition, although the exceptions appear at first glance to be well thought out, there are many "legitimate" uses of masks that are not covered by the exceptions and would be outlawed. barrington might be able to make sure this legislation gets brought up in committee, but the other members of the committee can probably be convinced to vote it down for the reasons I stated. Believe me, we're already on this, and will be taking action - we follow this stuff pretty closely here in OK. The difficult part is that very little notice is given as to when exactly a piece of legislation comes up in committee - otherwise it would be easier to take additional action beyond approaching the other committee members in advance. I will be writing up something and dropping it off in the offices of the other committee members before the next legislative session starts in Feb, as well as talking to as many of them as possible in person (difficult to catch them in their offices when the Legislature isn't in session).

edit: The text of the bill can be found and downloaded here: http://www.oklegislature.gov/TextOfMeasures.aspx The bill in question is SB13.

[CaptainAmerica]

I doubt that it would cut down on the real criminal behavior.

https://chickarama.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/swat_team_4131372991.jpg

exactly.

[tangent4ronpaul]

The public health dept might have a take on this. cold, winter, a ban on insulating your head.

-t

[invisible]

The public health dept might have a take on this. cold, winter, a ban on insulating your head.

-t

"Inclement weather" is one of the exceptions spelled out in the proposed legislation, and is one of the flaws, as it is subjective. Perhaps someone is cold enough on a 55 degree day to pull up the hood on their sweatshirt. Is that cold enough to be considered "inclement"? Perhaps it is not, by temperature alone, but it is also windy. How windy is windy enough to be considered "inclement"? Exactly how cold does it have to be, to be able to legally wear a ski mask? This is only one of several reasons why the legislation is unenforceable.

[Anti Federalist]

I do so hate a bunch of "law and order" republicans.

As bad if not worse than statist liberals.

[otherone]

He says it is to cut down on crime, but it wouldn’t apply to Halloween, parties, State sanctioned parades or “those wearing coverings required by their religious beliefs.”


I give you:
The First Church of
http://g.hiphotos.baidu.com/zhidao/pic/item/caef76094b36acafd81523587cd98d1000e99c99.jpg
GO FUCK YOURSELVES

[Lafayette]

this would make it unlawful to wear a mask, hood or covering during the commission of a crime


whaaaa? I don't even.

[Suzanimal]

edit: The text of the bill can be found and downloaded here: http://www.oklegislature.gov/TextOfMeasures.aspx The bill in question is SB13.




...title shall not apply...
and to those participating in the parades or
exhibitions of minstrel troupes, circuses, sporting groups, mascots
or other amusements or dramatic shows.
...
http://www.oklegislature.gov/TextOfMeasures.aspx

[DamianTV]

Whats next? Requiring every Protestor to wear Name Badges? This would not be possible if the 1st Amendment was not directly under attack.

[TheCount]

http://www.oklegislature.gov/TextOfMeasures.aspx

http://media.giphy.com/media/12FzH1bJUMnRcY/giphy.gif

[VIDEODROME]

Fuck this, I'm wearing a sweater.

http://2.media.collegehumor.cvcdn.com/68/49/a4794254df241f27db73616dfbd4e7e9-knitted-body-sweater.jpg

[Suzanimal]

What the.....:eek::D


Fuck this, I'm wearing a sweater.

http://2.media.collegehumor.cvcdn.com/68/49/a4794254df241f27db73616dfbd4e7e9-knitted-body-sweater.jpg

[TheCount]

This is by far the best part of the law:



SECTION 2. It being immediately necessary for the preservation
of the public peace, health and safety, an emergency is hereby
declared to exist, by reason whereof this act shall take effect and
be in full force from and after its passage and approval.

[invisible]

This is by far the best part of the law:




That's very typical for a piece of legislation from barrington.

[DamianTV]

Conflicting Opinions are now Illegal
Protesting will soon be Illegal
Privacy already is Illegal
Sweeping issues under the rug are now required by Law.

[kcchiefs6465]

Keep up the good work, invisible.

[invisible]

Conflicting Opinions are now Illegal
Protesting will soon be Illegal
Privacy already is Illegal
Sweeping issues under the rug are now required by Law.

Just remember, this isn't law yet, and there are several chances to defeat this thing:

The first step and easiest is to convince the other committee members to vote against it. If that fails and it gets through committee and is up for a floor vote, then -
The next step is to convince enough State Senators to vote it down on the floor. If that fails and it passes the Senate, then -

The next step is to try to get it killed in the State House committee. Assuming that it also goes to the public safety committee in the house, and assuming that the list of members on the state's website has been updated and is current, just take a look at exactly who is on that committee: http://www.okhouse.gov/Committees/CommitteeMembers.aspx?CommID=251&SubCommID=81
Note who chairs it. Now compare those names to post #7 here: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?462872-Liberty-Incumbent-Thread :) If the two above assumptions are correct, then the chances of it being killed at this stage are pretty good (the only bad thing here is that bennett is a good buddy of barrington, IIRC he luckily also terms out in 2016). But of course if that fails and it gets through the House committee, then -

The last chance to defeat this crap will be to convince enough State Reps to vote in down in the floor vote.

Believe me, those of us here in OK are on this, every step of the way. This is an excellent example of why it is important to keep an eye on what your State Legislature is doing, know who the players are (both good and bad), and go down to your capitol often and talk to the legislators in person - it makes bad legislation like this much easier to fight when you know who is most effective to approach, who not to waste your time with, and where effort is most effectively applied to promote good legislation or kill off the bad stuff.

edit: With regards to this getting through the Senate committee and reaching a floor vote, note who the newly appointed Senate Majority Whip is, and then compare to the post #7 in the other thread here I had linked to. http://www.oksenate.gov/Senators/Default.aspx?selectedtab=1
So perhaps a Senate floor vote will be discouraged from passing by the new Majority Whip himself. :)

[invisible]

Keep up the good work, invisible.

Thanks. Liberty folks need to be doing this in every state. Luckily, here in OK the grassroots is strong, and we have a handful of known Ron Paul supporters (and perhaps even a few stealth supporters that I don't know about) in the State Legislature. This is not only why it is important to be familiar with your State Legislators and what they are doing, it is also why it is important to work on electing as many Ron Paul supporters as possible at the state level. Every state has their barringtons and newberrys, and you have to keep a close eye on what they're doing and always be ready to mobilize and head off any police state nonsense they propose.

[oyarde]

Good Lord these people suck .

[PaulConventionWV]

whaaaa? I don't even.

Hey you! Take that mask off while you're robbing that bank!

[Weston White]

That latter portion itself renders it unconstitutional--leaving it in perpetual conflict with the First Amendment (not to mention common sense), if passed it will surely be destroyed upon adjudicated redress: "or to intentionally conceal a person’s identity in a public place."

[otherone]

That latter portion itself renders it unconstitutional--leaving it in perpetual conflict with the First Amendment (not to mention common sense), if passed it will surely be destroyed upon adjudicated redress: "or to intentionally conceal a person’s identity in a public place."

https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=HN.608000677556454462&pid=15.1&P=0

https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=HN.608018746478627405&pid=15.1&P=0

[Cissy]

But, of course, any government employees wearing masks will be exempt from the law.

Because government employees would *never* be tempted to commit crimes while their identity is concealed.

[TruckinMike]

The only thing that will stop this kind of crap is a mob hanging that criminal from his nut sack. Until then, expect this BS to continue. It just keeps going and going. And these jackasses expect us not to start shooting or hanging them?

On that note a nice hot tar & feathering may put a stop to violence in the future. If it saves just one life its worth it. Does anyone know how much tar it would take for every state and federal legislator?

[Tod]

How can anyone possibly read this proposed legislation and then claim that our government has one iota of credibility or "authority" with a straight face? All other arguments for or against the legitimacy of government aside.

[jmdrake]

...title shall not apply...
and to those participating in the parades or
exhibitions of minstrel troupes, circuses, sporting groups, mascots
or other amusements or dramatic shows.
...http://www.oklegislature.gov/TextOfMeasures.aspx

So I can go protest in this?

http://www.lebaneseexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/coachella-valley-schools-1024x642.jpg

[devil21]

http://countercurrentnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/anonymous_hoodies.jpg

:) Well, we did build that with the Nov 5 moneybomb. Remember, remember...... :) :) :)

Why does this law declare an emergency and what does that mean for OK residents???

This law doesn't restrict only protest related disguises, it bans hoodies and masks entirely in public. Those items are a thwart to facial recognition software. This is a trial balloon.

[Schifference]

Will they make exceptions for Muslim women?

[Acala]

It is often the case that statutes governing a legislative body will specify that any new law goes into effect 30 days after passage UNLESS it is an emergency. So legislatures, as a matter of routine, declare everything an emergency.

Instead of killing this bill, it shoul be amended to apply only to government employees in the course and scope of their official duties.

[invisible]

Hopefully this will continue to get media attention, and increase public opposition.

http://m.news9.com/story.aspx?story=27762194&catId=112032

A state senator who says he was trying to protect law enforcement has instead come under fire from people who think he's trying to ban hoodies in Oklahoma.

Republican Sen. Don Barrington of Lawton says his office has been flooded with calls and emails since stories began circulating on social media about a bill he introduced ahead of the upcoming legislative session.

He says he was prompted in part by mask-wearing protesters who rallied at the Capitol in recent years and caused problems for security.

[Keith and stuff]

"Inclement weather" is one of the exceptions spelled out in the proposed legislation, and is one of the flaws, as it is subjective. Perhaps someone is cold enough on a 55 degree day to pull up the hood on their sweatshirt. Is that cold enough to be considered "inclement"? Perhaps it is not, by temperature alone, but it is also windy. How windy is windy enough to be considered "inclement"? Exactly how cold does it have to be, to be able to legally wear a ski mask? This is only one of several reasons why the legislation is unenforceable.

In NJ, 90 degrees calls for a hoodie to some kids.

[Suzanimal]

Opposition Grows To Bill That Would Jail and Fine Protesters Who Wear Masks and ‘Hoodies’


On Monday, February 2, Oklahoma State Senator Don Barrington formally introduced SB13 in the state Senate.

Ever since the Occupy Wall Street movement took off and spread to cities around the world, the Guy Fawkes mask worn by Anonymous “hacktivists” has been an increasingly common sight at protests.

Throughout 2014, Anons could be spotted in sizable numbers on the streets of Ferguson, Beavercreek, New York City and all over the world at anti-police brutality protests.

The chair of the Oklahoma’s public safety committee introduced the bill, state senator Don Barrington (R), said that this would make “it unlawful to wear a mask, hood or covering during the commission of a crime or to intentionally conceal a person’s identity in a public place.”

He says it is to cut down on crime, but it wouldn’t apply to Halloween, parties, State sanctioned parades or “those wearing coverings required by their religious beliefs.”

It also wouldn’t apply to those who wear masks for medical purposes.

The formal SB13 bill says, specifically that it would be illegal and punishable with a fine of up to $500 and a year in jail to do the following:

A. To wear a mask, hood or covering, which conceals the identity of the wearer during the commission of a crime or for the purpose of coercion, intimidation or harassment; OR

B. To intentionally conceal his or her identity in a public place by means of a robe, mask, or other disguise.

So are police going to just start asking people if they have a medical or religious reason to wear a mask? Clearly, the bill is intended to apply to those who are in public space, not at a party, or trick-or-treating, who officers can identify by virtue of their participating in protests. Robbers do not typically go to and from the places they commit crimes, while wearing masks. So invoking the farce of “fighting crime” is a nonsense.

Participating in protests wearing masks would be the only way that officers would know for sure that one was not wearing the mask under the aforementioned exemptions.

The group Color Of Change has organized a petition in response to the bill, which they are calling the #HoodieBanBill. But the bill seems intent on targeting Anons just as much as people wearing hooded sweatshirts. Color of Change notes that the bill criminalizes law abiding citizens for what they wear and “intensifies a culture of hostility” with law enforcement. It also “curtails constitutionally protected free expression rights” and “doesn’t include political protest as one of its exceptions.”

When we contacted, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Senator Anthony Sykes tells us that the bill won’t be granted a hearing this legislative session. But that doesn’t mean that it’s dead, as it may be considered next session.

...

http://countercurrentnews.com/2015/02/sb13-would-jail-and-fine-protesters-for-wearing-masks-and-hooded-sweatshirts/

[invisible]

On Monday, we had a nice little protest at the Capitol, and afterwards I dropped this off to all the committee members:


Please consider the following before voting on SB13:

SB13 is an extremely poor piece of legislation, which needs to be soundly rejected by the Public Safety Committee. While at first glance, the legislation may appear to be sound, but in addition to being completely irrelevant to it's stated purpose, it is also completely unenforceable, as well as overbroad in application beyond it's stated purpose.

The first section of the bill, 1301 A, states that “It shall be unlawful for any person in this state to wear a mask, hood, or covering which conceals the identity of the wearer during the commission of a crime or for the purpose of coercion, intimidation, or harassment”. The first part of this sentence can arguably be construed as reasonable, and serving the public interest. After all, it is necessary to identify criminals so that they can be effectively apprehended and prosecuted. This is where any semblance to reason or serving the public interest ends with this legislation. If this legislation is to advance beyond the committee process at all, it needs to be amended to read nothing more than “It shall be unlawful for any person in this state to wear a mask, hood, or covering which conceals the identity of the wearer during the commission of a crime”. Nothing beyond this single sentence is necessary to accomplish the stated purpose of the legislation, and everything following this sentence renders the legislation completely unenforceable in a court of law.
The second half of this first sentence is subject to potentially overbroad application of the law. Anybody can be arrested and prosecuted merely on someone's word that they “felt intimidated”. And upon prosecution in a court of law, it would be virtually impossible to prove that someone did have the intent to coerce, intimidate, or harass, unless the concealment of identity was coupled with some other action that would prove that sort of intent.

Section B continues, “(It shall be unlawful for any person in this state) to intentionally conceal his or her identity in a public place by means of a robe, mask, or other disguise”. It then goes on to list various exceptions that would be considered acceptable. At first glance, these exceptions appear to be reasonable, and very well thought out. But upon closer examination, these exceptions criminalize legitimate activity by permitting overbroad application of the law, and also again render the legislation completely unenforceable in a court of law.

One area of exception is described as “(This title shall not apply) to those participating in any public exhibition of an educational, religious, or historical character”. As written, this legislation has just outlawed Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny! Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are not religious characters, despite them being associated with religious holidays. So perhaps a specific exception should be created for Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. But if that is done, there is nothing in the proposed legislation that specifies when these specific characters are “out of season”. Will it be illegal to dress as Santa Claus between December 26th, and November 1st of the following year? Does our state legislature really want to dictate exactly when Santa and the Easter Bunny are allowed to appear in the malls, or anywhere else in public? Does the Republican author of this proposed legislation really feel that this would be a conservative position, that serves the public interest and safety? One might argue that these two particular characters are not of a religious nature, but instead are historical characters. If that is the case, so are the Lone Ranger, Batman, or any of our Presidents! It will be impossible to successfully prosecute anyone who wears a Lone Ranger mask. But perhaps it can be successfully argued in court somehow that Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are historical characters, and that the Lone Ranger and Batman are not. But it is obviously unarguable that wearing a mask of any of our country's Presidents is an exhibition depicting a historical character, again making this legislation completely unenforceable.

Another area of exception is described as “(This title shall not apply) (to those wearing coverings) incidental to protection from the weather”. The problem here is that this exception is completely subjective. How cold does it have to be, for someone to be able to legally wear a ski mask or scarf that conceals his or her identity? 40 degrees? 30 degrees? Minus 10 degrees? Are we going to merely regulate this by temperature alone, or is the state going to be kind enough to take the wind chill factor into account? How cold does it have to be, for someone to be able to legally wear a hood pulled low over their face that conceals his or her identity? 60 degrees? 50 degrees? 30 degrees? How low can a hood be pulled over one's face, before they are in violation of the law? How can this be determined by any objective standard? Are we going to equip our police officers with rulers to go shoving around in people's faces, so they can measure the distance from the hood to the tip of the nose? Don't our police officers have better things to do than calculating the wind chill factor at any given moment, to determine whether or not to arrest someone for protecting themselves against the weather? Again, this is completely unenforceable in a court of law. Is a prosecutor really going to argue before a judge that someone charged with this “crime” did not feel cold, when the temperature and wind chill factor were 2 degrees above the “legal limit” that particular day?

The last area of exception is described as “(This title shall not apply) to those participating in the parades or exhibitions of minstrel troupes, circuses, sporting groups, mascots, or other amusements or dramatic shows”. How far from a grocery store or a gas pump does someone have to be, before they can legally dress in public as a tiger? How far does one have to be from an insurance company's office before they can legally dress in public as a lizard? How can the police officer enforcing this law determine if that person really is dressed accurately enough like the insurance company's Gecko, rather than just any old salamander instead? How can the police officer be sure that that tiger costume really looks enough like Tony to be legal to wear? How can the promotion agent or company executive be certain that their mascot costumes are accurate enough to comply with Oklahoma law? Are we going to send police officers out with tape measures, to make sure that no one dressed in public as a tiger or a lizard is further away from a grocery store, gas pump, or insurance company office than the law allows them to be? Or is the intent of the law to only allow sports teams to have their mascots appear in a parade or stadium, and make the use of mascots illegal by other businesses? What will determine whether or not a mascot is legal? Are we now going to license mascots in the state of Oklahoma, complete with proof of a business license and some sort of mascot tax or fee? As the proposed legislation is written, Ronald McDonald can be arrested for merely driving to work. Again, the call for the sort of increased regulation made necessary by this proposed legislation hardly constitutes a conservative position.
Does one have to actually carry some sort of instrument, before they can be considered part of a minstrel troupe? Can one person be considered a minstrel troupe? Or a duo? Or is it only legal to consider yourself a minstrel if you have a group of three or more people, who all carry instruments? Anyone can consider themselves a public performance artist participating in an “amusement” or “dramatic show”, and successfully argue this in a court of law. Or is the state going to have to add yet another layer of licensing and regulations? If so, what criteria will be used by the state to judge whether or not someone is a “real” performance artist or minstrel? Not only does this proposed legislation put the state in the legally impossible position of defining what is art and what is not, this area of exception again renders the proposed legislation completely unenforceable and meaningless in a court of law.

Aside from the first half of the first sentence, this proposed legislation does absolutely nothing to preserve the public peace, health, and safety, which is the stated intent. Nothing about this legislation addresses anything that could even remotely be construed as an emergency. As such, this legislation is being presented under false pretenses, if these things are truly the stated intent. Is the true intent to criminalize otherwise innocent behavior? Or is the true intent to add yet another layer of regulation, bureaucracy, and fees? Either way, since this legislation is completely unenforceable in a court of law, it constitutes nothing more than an additional waste of taxpayer money. As such, it is both your duty and your responsibility as a member of the Public Safety Committee to either vote to scrap this unenforceable legislation in it's entirety, or to amend it by narrowing the scope to only make it unlawful to conceal one's identity during the commission of some other crime.

[kpitcher]

"Inclement weather" is one of the exceptions spelled out in the proposed legislation, and is one of the flaws, as it is subjective. Perhaps someone is cold enough on a 55 degree day to pull up the hood on their sweatshirt. Is that cold enough to be considered "inclement"? Perhaps it is not, by temperature alone, but it is also windy. How windy is windy enough to be considered "inclement"? Exactly how cold does it have to be, to be able to legally wear a ski mask? This is only one of several reasons why the legislation is unenforceable.
I can sunburn, sun can be inclement weather for me.

[Cabal]

No one cared who I was until I put on the mask.

[Ronin Truth]

No hoodies or masks, no body armor. OMG, what's this nazi police state coming too?

[oyarde]

So I can go protest in this?

http://www.lebaneseexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/coachella-valley-schools-1024x642.jpg
Love that guy .