this post was submitted on 27 Jun 2025
484 points (99.4% liked)

politics

31197 readers
1980 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
  3. No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
  4. No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
all 19 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world 38 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Even if it passes, this administration and its brown shirts don't give a flying fuck about the law. They'll ignore it, it won't be enforced, Dems will write more angry letters, rinse and repeat.

[–] gaja@lemm.ee 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But then you might have a chance to argue your second amendment right when you shoot a masked kidnapper.

[–] Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Bombs and bullets do be the cure for Nazism.

[–] adespoton@lemmy.ca 30 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

This is great, but a) it isn’t going to pass, and b) what about cops going under cover and plainclothes officers? So they get a carve out, or are they made illegal?

How about SWAT teams in gas masks? Sheriffs working in dusty areas wearing bandanas? Riot visors?

[–] halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world 46 points 1 year ago

They're basically extending an existing law making wearing a disguise while committing a crime a separate offense, to cover law enforcement while in the performance of their duties. It's already illegal for you to do this as a regular civilian, they're making it the same for law enforcement.

There is an exception for undercover officers. There is zero reason outside those situations for an officer to disguise themselves. SWAT aren't usually disguised, they are very clearly identified as police already and aren't trying to disguise themselves.

Plainclothes officers outside undercover assignments are already a grey area to be honest, too easy for them to purposefully escalate conflicts while making it look natural, and then justify a response to an escalation they created. ICE is just using that to their advantage here.

Existing law makes it a misdemeanor to wear a mask, false whiskers, or any personal disguise, as specified, with the purpose of evading or escaping discovery, recognition, or identification while committing a public offense, or for concealment, flight, evasion, or escape from arrest or conviction for any public offense. This bill would make it a crime for a law enforcement officer to wear any mask or personal disguise while interacting with the public in the performance of their duties, except as specified. The bill would exempt an officer engaged in an undercover assignment from these provisions. The bill would define law enforcement officer as any officer of a local, state, or federal law enforcement agency, or any person acting on behalf of a local, state, or federal law enforcement agency. By creating a new crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would declare its provisions to be severable. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

SB627 | California 2025-2026 | Law enforcement: masks. | TrackBill https://trackbill.com/bill/california-senate-bill-627-law-enforcement-masks/2670575/

This actually is not a particularly vague law. It's pretty clear cut, and requires an intent to disguise. With the ICE bitches there is a clear intent to disguise there and not identify themselves as law enforcement, they've even admitted that is the case.

The mask itself isn't the issue, it's the mask alongside not being not identifying themselves as police via something like a uniform or vest.

[–] al_Kaholic@lemmynsfw.com 2 points 1 year ago

Police horses don't wear masks I think the pigs who ride them shouldn't get to either.

[–] Ferrous@lemmy.ml 13 points 1 year ago

Pathetic. I expect the democrats will soon be pushing a law forbidding ICE from brutalizing citizens for more than 30 minutes.

Every democrat in power should be lighting shit on fire until ICE is abolished.

[–] peteyestee@feddit.org 11 points 1 year ago

Oh cool a soggy bandaid fix.