Welcome back to the Dirt Show.

Today we're going to talk about a subject that is sure to arouse controversy.

And if my mails generally in my contacts from others is any sign,

this is going to be something that we'll get a lot of disagreement.

Today I want to talk about the judge in Florida who issued a ruling yesterday

that the mask requirement on airlines and trains and other federal means of transportation

is illegal. She didn't say it was unconstitutional.

She didn't say it would be unconstitutional for the government to require masks on airplanes or on trains.

She just said that this particular ruling is illegal because it violated the administrative procedure.

A very technical decision, long decision in which she basically said that the administrative agencies

didn't talk their eyes across their T's.

The decision itself does not read as a very thoughtful decision.

It's a long decision, but it I think fails to take into account the balancing of rights.

Let me start by conceding that people have a right not to wear masks.

You have a right to generally do what you want with your body and yourself.

You don't have a complete right. You don't have a right to get an airplane without any clothing.

And you don't have a right to get on an airplane if you're generally sick with a contagious disease.

But generally have a right to decide whether you want to walk around with a mask or not in Japan and in other parts of the world.

People routinely wear masks just on the street to protect themselves against pollution and against environmental and medical issues.

But people also don't wear masks that generally should be an individual choice.

And so there is a right not to wear a mask, but there's a countervailing right as often as the case.

I have a right not to have you sit next to me without a mask.

...