Letter to the Editor
INDIVIDUAL FREEDOMS
The December 23rd article summarizing the Cedar Key City Commission meeting of December 15th reported that “Mayor Davis explained that the report shows that the safety issue needs to be attacked in a different way than by a mask mandate. Those folks have a right to not wear masks (the State of Florida supports the right to not require masks).” Assuming the statement that “those folks have a right to not wear masks” is an accurate representation of the Mayor’s remarks, it is a sentiment and legal analysis that is incorrect.
While the political debate about whether to require people in public to wear a mask has spiraled out of control, the legal ability of a local, state or federal government to require that a mask be worn in public was confirmed 115 years ago by the U.S. Supreme Court which recognized that there must be limits to individual freedoms for society to function. For example, we all know that the constitutionally protected right to free speech does not allow an individual to yell fire in a crowded theater. Likewise, the constitutionally protected right to privacy does not allow an individual to imperil the health of their neighbors. The case before the U.S. Supreme Court 115 years ago involved a challenge to a law requiring mandatory vaccinations, a far more intrusive invasion of an individual’s privacy than a mask requirement. The Court made it clear that for society to function, individual freedoms may need to give way to the overall well being of society. The Court’s reasoning is just as relevant today as it was 115 years ago:
We come, then, to inquire whether any right given or secured by the Constitution is invaded by the requirement for people to [wear a mask in public]. The defendant insists that his liberty is invaded when the State subjects him to fine or imprisonment for neglecting or refusing to submit to [wearing a mask in public]; that a compulsory [mask] law is unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive, and, therefore, hostile to the inherent right of every freeman to care for his own body and health in such way as to him seems best, and that the execution of such a law against one who objects to [wearing a mask], no matter for what reason, is nothing short of an assault upon his person.
But the liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States to every person within its jurisdiction does not import an absolute right in each person to be, at all times and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint. There are manifold restraints to which every person is necessarily subject for the common good. On any other basis, organized society could not exist with safety to its members. Society based on the rule that each one is a law unto himself would soon be confronted with disorder and anarchy. Real liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to [do what he wishes] …, regardless of the injury that may be done to others.
But the liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States to every person within its jurisdiction does not import an absolute right in each person to be, at all times and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint. There are manifold restraints to which every person is necessarily subject for the common good. On any other basis, organized society could not exist with safety to its members. Society based on the rule that each one is a law unto himself would soon be confronted with disorder and anarchy. Real liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to [do what he wishes] …, regardless of the injury that may be done to others.
This court has more than once recognized it as a fundamental principle that persons and property are subjected to all kinds of restraints and burdens, in order to secure the general comfort, health, and prosperity of the State, …. The possession and enjoyment of all rights are subject to such reasonable conditions as may be deemed by the governing authority of the country essential to the safety, health, peace, good order and morals of the community. Even liberty itself, the greatest of all rights, is not unrestricted license to act according to one's own will. It is only freedom from restraint under conditions essential to the equal enjoyment of the same right by others. It is then liberty regulated by law. (The word or phrase referring to a mask was substituted for the word or phrase in the original referring to vaccination). Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905).
So, to be clear, the City Commission has the unequivocal legal right to impose a mandatory mask requirement within the city limits if it is warranted to protect the “safety, health, peace, [and] good order” of the community. When Mayor Davis voices opposition to a mandatory mask requirement, he is making a political statement and not one based on a constraint imposed by law. In essence, Mayor Davis is advocating for a principle that “the right of each individual person to [do what he wishes is paramount] …, regardless of the injury that may be done to others.” That is a principle that will lead to “disorder and anarchy” and not the America that our founding fathers envisioned.
Johnathan Ferguson
Cedar Key, FL
Cedar Key, FL
********
