To be fair, freedom should be a two-way street. While I respect someone's choice to not wear face coverings in public, I want the freedom to frequent public places responsibly without being exposed to life-threatening viruses from those who choose not to wear a mask. Be free to choose not to wear a mask, but avoid public places in doing so.
Laws prevent smoking cancer-causing cigarettes in public places, so that others are not exposed to the poisons that smokers, through their own freedom of choice, choose to use. Smokers have freedom to smoke, but not in public places exposing others to their poisons. They are free to choose their own risk, but not to give that risk to others.
It appears we have already decided this issue of freedom. Freedom of choice, but not freedom to choose to harm others.
If this logic is flawed because someone should be allowed to broadcast deadly viruses, then laws regarding smoking in public places should be changed to allow deadly cigarette smoke wherever the smoker chooses. Certainly that would be a mistake, so why not treat a public health crisis by mandating face coverings in public, temporarily making freedom a two-way street again?
Steve Vance, South Jordan
Donate to the newsroom now. The Salt Lake Tribune, Inc. is a 501(c)(3) public charity and contributions are tax deductible