Masks and rights

I support the opinion and argument that face masks can be mandated and required in the editorial "Really? A mask is too much to ask?" Now the main argument that anti-maskers use is that mask mandates violate their First Amendment rights that include the freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly, and petition.

These claims of civil liberties being taken away aren't valid, because they don't line up with the values of the founders and the intentions of each of the rights. With freedom of speech, anti-maskers can still state their opinions and feelings about wearing masks, but that doesn't mean they have a right to choose whether to wear one.

This is true in your article of there being an "argument [that] is based on the false premise that only the mask wearer is protected by the mask. And it's based on a false premise that it doesn't hurt if people who are at low risk for severe outcomes get the disease." These ideas are very shortsighted and don't look at the bigger picture.

People want to compare wearing a mask to smoking or drinking alcohol because it's supposed to be a person's choice whether to do something harmful to themselves that won't affect others. In reality, wearing a mask is like having speed limits or wearing seat belts, because once those guidelines aren't followed, you may hurt yourself, but at the cost of others.

Even though people will continue to argue, the federal government can establish these mask mandates through the "necessary and proper" clause of the Constitution, which would allow them to temporarily get rid of that "implied" right not to wear a mask, due to the need to protect the health of the public and to keep the government and economy functioning without disruption.

Marco Anselmi

Round Lake