Comments by "Skankhunt36" (@skankhunt3624) on "New York City to reopen 100% on July 1 — Here are the details" video.

What freedoms did you have taken from you?
3
@michaellopez-lq5fn you definitely never lost the freedom to practice religion or your freedom of speech, let's get real.
2
@michaellopez-lq5fn censored how, and by whom?
1
@silkwoodart so much hatred in your heart. Sad
1
@silkwoodart wasn't hard, you made a public comment and wanted other people to respond to it right? Do I not have the freedom of speech when I'm conversing with you? Sounds a little hypocritical.
1
@silkwoodart others defending your point did though. Sorry that you're so full of hate and anger, you should really look into getting some help with that, but you should really be focusing your displeasure at your lack of knowledge of the supreme court case, Jacobson vs. Massachusetts.
1
@silkwoodart I did, the Supreme Court case of Jacobson vs. Massachusetts.🙄
1
@silkwoodart The Supreme Court case Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905) set the precedent that states can mandate safety policies and procedures to combat health emergencies. The global pandemic of COVID-19 certainly counts as a health emergency. Thus, states have the responsibility to protect their citizens by implementing proven prevention measures, like limiting public spaces and businesses’ maximum capacities and requiring social distancing or even mask-wearing when in public. In fact, these measures are far less intrusive than vaccination, meaning Jacobson v. Massachusetts definitely applies in this situation. The claim that mandated mask-wearing infringes upon citizens’ Constitutional rights is unsubstantiated and highly invalid considering the Court’s past rulings. The government not only can enforce mask-wearing and other virus mitigation and social distancing measures, but should do so when faced with a health threat as serious as COVID-19.
1