Extremes? From Broward County, Florida:
Yes, in Florida, in Broward County (Fort Lauderdale, 2nd most populous county in the State), you must wear a mask in your own home – unless you are eating or drinking. And maintain “social distancing.” Added at 1045 hrs MDT, 29JUL20): Or so I understood the referenced document above and as told me by various correspondents in Florida. (Tom Knapp, see his comment) believes that I am way off-base, and that there are other interpretations. Whether it is Tom’s interpretations or my original one, it shows the degree of control that local governments (and their increasingly-dictatorial public health departments) are attempting to exercise in the guise of “public health” and “just one life.”
No doubt (see my commentary on the app DOMO), the Public Health Department will track your phones to ensure that social distance is maintained. And no doubt, there is SOME app out there what lets the PHD use the selfie-camera on your cell phone to see if you are wearing a face covering or not.
And no doubt, issue you a ticket through your phone for failing to do so. Or use the phone to let the “real cops” track you down and bust you. Or if they are scared of what you could do to them, shoot and kill you.
As we can see, the Lockdown is NOT over – even though the Lockdown Rebellion seems to have slowed. And many locations which seemed to be somewhat less infected (with panic, not with COVID-19) are indeed comparable to Michigan, New York, or California.
Resist, but coordinate with other people of like mind to guard against getting singled out and dealt out.
Pingback: Florida — Pandemic panic revitalized – Rational Review News Digest
“Yes, in Florida, in Broward County (Fort Lauderdale, 2nd most populous county in the State), you must wear a mask in your own home – unless you are eating or drinking.”
Incorrect: “[F]acial coverings must be worn by all persons while outside the geographical
boundaries of their residence if social distancing of at least six feet (6’) between persons not of
the same household cannot be consistently maintained.”
There are two plausible ways to interpret the passage you cite, neither of which are good, but neither of which remotely resembles your own interpretation.
Plausible interpretation #1: Residents of a home are required to enforce the mask order on visiting non-residents. That is, if you have a friend over and cannot maintain six feet social distance, you’re legally required to force that friend to wear a mask.
Slightly Less Plausible, But Still Remotely Plausible, Interpretation #2: Residents of a home are required to ensure that other residents of the home obey the mask orders while not at the home. So if my kid goes out to Walmart and gets caught not wearing a mask, I can be punished. This kind of law is not entirely unheard of — some municipalities require landlords to evict tenants if one family member is convicted of a crime, etc. What makes this interpretation less plausible is the use of the word “present” in a context that implies the presence being in the home itself.
I appreciate your interpretations – the understanding that I have of that requirement came from what I was told by correspondents in Florida itself, and familiar with Broward County.
But as you point out, none of these are good interpretations as far as liberty is concerned.
I’m rewriting the posting to reflect what I’ve learned from you! Thanks!
Just for the record, I’m one of your correspondents in Florida, but I can’t claim any great familiarity with Broward County 😉
I have seen worse examples of this kind of writing problem from around the country. For example, on another site the other day, a professor looked at language from his school’s re-opening plan and noted that it could be read to say that if he wanted to teach in-person classes, he’d have to commit to not making love with his wife during the school year.