The risk is indeed a judgment call, but it's not YOUR call to make in this instance. It's the call of the service provider.
If you agreed to comply, and you refuse to, you'll be hard pressed to win a court case saying your rights were violated. You were warned. You accepted. And you refused to comply. The actual level of risk becomes less important in a case when you've already agreed to it.
The wording of the contract probably states that you agree that COVID is a risk and you agree to use a mask to prevent the spread. Their lawyers aren't stupid. Your claim in court will be that you signed an agreement that it's a risk, that you agreed to mitigate it, but then you refused to when asked multiple times. If you agreed that COVID was a risk but later tried to pretend it wasn't, you just committed contract fraud.
I think you are overlooking some major details here for the sake of being technically correct from one specific legal perspective. My point is this:
If a mask can be taken off or adjusted at the discretion of a passenger to drink, eat or breathe more freely at any time than you cannot single out this man just because it appears that he is trying to be a dick about it. that would be the rights violation, singling this man out specifically, and only if they went to some extreme like restraining him, etc. this person could easily have obstructed breathing, sleep apnea, etc. that would make it much more dangerous for him to fall asleep on an airplane (limited oxygen supply as it is) with a mask on. that would seem to be a completely legit reason to adjust his mask or they could just be having anxiety or a panic attack which could also restrict oxygen flow.
The notion that the customer would be committing contract fraud is an incredibly dubious assertion. I know you are trying to be lawyer-y here but c'mon. I get your argument that the airline is in the clear to mandate masks. my point is how do they enforce that? you can't just say "this is our policy" and then bind and gag someone who isn't complying. there would need to be some sort of legitimate threat or law being broken to do that.
the whole idea that they can just subjectively play gestapo due to their own arbitrary rules is absurd. the shot in question shows no social distancing on that plane. so whatever public safety justification they would possibly have for restraining this guy would seem pretty weak to me. maybe not a "rights violation" or even technically criminal activity per se but definitely setting themselves up for a civil lawsuit if they went HAM on this dude and their reason was "public safety" and "he signed his rights away."
Look, I find the whole thing incredibly IRRATIONAL. That being said, I support the right of businesses to CHOOSE to be irrational if they wish, because preventing them just leads to people in gov't who will claim some actions are justified or aren't over politics. Now, when gov't regulation is involved, it becomes the job of the gov't to limit the powers of the industry. What gov'ts practice is called crony-capitalism, but in actuality it is a form of communism. Corrupt politicians start choosing winners based on politics, and create rules to benefit certain classes of consumer under the guise of regulation.
When an industry gets to that point, it makes no sense to be angry at the industry for kowtowing to a corrupt gov't that can easily destroy them in a time when their industry was already nearly destroyed buy a corrupt gov't plot.
I completely get all of that. This situation is different from just proverbial "businesses" because the business transaction takes place in the sky.
We 100% agree that the airlines have the right to mandate, no question. Only question is how do you enforce, what are the consequences of non-compliance and what are the acceptable exemptions that are allowed. Obviously compliance for the entire duration of the flight would not be something that you could enforce so I guarantee that isn't the policy. There's something called a contract of attrition as well in that just because you agree to something in writing doesn't mean it can be unilaterally and unreasonably enforced against you, or that it doesn't have to stand up to legal scrutiny otherwise.
The risk is indeed a judgment call, but it's not YOUR call to make in this instance. It's the call of the service provider.
If you agreed to comply, and you refuse to, you'll be hard pressed to win a court case saying your rights were violated. You were warned. You accepted. And you refused to comply. The actual level of risk becomes less important in a case when you've already agreed to it.
The wording of the contract probably states that you agree that COVID is a risk and you agree to use a mask to prevent the spread. Their lawyers aren't stupid. Your claim in court will be that you signed an agreement that it's a risk, that you agreed to mitigate it, but then you refused to when asked multiple times. If you agreed that COVID was a risk but later tried to pretend it wasn't, you just committed contract fraud.
I think you are overlooking some major details here for the sake of being technically correct from one specific legal perspective. My point is this:
If a mask can be taken off or adjusted at the discretion of a passenger to drink, eat or breathe more freely at any time than you cannot single out this man just because it appears that he is trying to be a dick about it. that would be the rights violation, singling this man out specifically, and only if they went to some extreme like restraining him, etc. this person could easily have obstructed breathing, sleep apnea, etc. that would make it much more dangerous for him to fall asleep on an airplane (limited oxygen supply as it is) with a mask on. that would seem to be a completely legit reason to adjust his mask or they could just be having anxiety or a panic attack which could also restrict oxygen flow.
The notion that the customer would be committing contract fraud is an incredibly dubious assertion. I know you are trying to be lawyer-y here but c'mon. I get your argument that the airline is in the clear to mandate masks. my point is how do they enforce that? you can't just say "this is our policy" and then bind and gag someone who isn't complying. there would need to be some sort of legitimate threat or law being broken to do that.
the whole idea that they can just subjectively play gestapo due to their own arbitrary rules is absurd. the shot in question shows no social distancing on that plane. so whatever public safety justification they would possibly have for restraining this guy would seem pretty weak to me. maybe not a "rights violation" or even technically criminal activity per se but definitely setting themselves up for a civil lawsuit if they went HAM on this dude and their reason was "public safety" and "he signed his rights away."
Look, I find the whole thing incredibly IRRATIONAL. That being said, I support the right of businesses to CHOOSE to be irrational if they wish, because preventing them just leads to people in gov't who will claim some actions are justified or aren't over politics. Now, when gov't regulation is involved, it becomes the job of the gov't to limit the powers of the industry. What gov'ts practice is called crony-capitalism, but in actuality it is a form of communism. Corrupt politicians start choosing winners based on politics, and create rules to benefit certain classes of consumer under the guise of regulation.
When an industry gets to that point, it makes no sense to be angry at the industry for kowtowing to a corrupt gov't that can easily destroy them in a time when their industry was already nearly destroyed buy a corrupt gov't plot.
I completely get all of that. This situation is different from just proverbial "businesses" because the business transaction takes place in the sky.
We 100% agree that the airlines have the right to mandate, no question. Only question is how do you enforce, what are the consequences of non-compliance and what are the acceptable exemptions that are allowed. Obviously compliance for the entire duration of the flight would not be something that you could enforce so I guarantee that isn't the policy. There's something called a contract of attrition as well in that just because you agree to something in writing doesn't mean it can be unilaterally and unreasonably enforced against you, or that it doesn't have to stand up to legal scrutiny otherwise.