- Now, when Tucker Carlson said that we should be calling the police or child protective services anytime a child is wearing a mask because that parent is
committing child abuse, something struck me. And no, it wasn't exactly
the complete lunacy and insanity of the statement that was clearly just
designed to trigger the libs, and to get people to rage
watch Tucker Carlson, it was that there was a decent chance that Tucker Carlson was asking people to commit an actual crime in the name of this stupid
mask-related culture war. (bright music) - [Advertiser] Sponsored by
CuriosityStream and Nebula. - Hey, legal eagles, it's
time to think like a lawyer, because if you do what
Tucker Carlson says, well, there's a decent
chance you might go to jail. If you haven't been following along, Tucker Carlson, the ostensible
hater of big government and champion on personal freedom, has suddenly found a darn good reason why the big government should interfere with your personal freedom, specifically your right
to raise your children the way that you want to. Remember, this is the
party of family values. So, what is this emergency that justifies swift governmental action? Human trafficking? Terrorism? Well, no. It's actually something
much more sinister. It's children wearing cloth masks. (suspenseful music) - So, next time you see someone
in a mask on the sidewalk or on the bike path, do not hesitate. Ask politely, but firmly. "Would you please take off your mask? Science shows there is no
reason for you to be wearing it. Your mask is making me uncomfortable." - Oh yes, the libertarian wants people to stop doing something that
doesn't affect other people in any way whatsoever. - Masks are for the guilty. They're signifiers of
shame and submission. - And guy who ostensibly says that he wants the government
to leave him alone included a rant that
recommended that his viewers call the cops if they see a child outside wearing a mask. - Call the police immediately. Contact child protective services. Keep calling until someone arrives. - Yes. Apparently, parents everywhere are committing mass child abuse, like these people and these people and these people. Yes, these people are all
monsters committing child abuse and they must be stopped because here's the thing, putting aside the legal repercussions of calling the CPS or the police, which we'll get to in just a second, as we've seen time and
time again in the news, anytime the police are
called for anything, it has the possibility of
turning violent if not lethal. For better or worse, the police are armed. And any law, whether it is
passing off a fake $20 bill or trying to sell cigarettes without the correct certificate, has the possibility of being enforced at the barrel of a gun. And of course, the real
civil libertarians, not Tucker Carlson, have recognized that the
preponderance of laws in this country, it may not happen very often, but have the possibility of being enforced by people with guns and
things can turn south. Do not call the police unnecessarily. So, the point that I think
Tucker is trying to make here is that he doesn't
agree with mask mandates that require people and
children to wear masks outdoors because outdoor transmission is low, and the added benefit from
wearing a mask is negligible because the transmission of COVID outdoors is just low to begin with. And fine, that's very probably true, but when people are being
faced with a global pandemic where now over 500,000
Americans have died, it's probably okay for people
to freak out a little bit. And it's a false equivalency to say that even if there were no outdoor
transmission whatsoever, that there's no reason for a mask mandate. It's not the same thing to say that the only reason for
an outdoor mask mandate might be to prevent outdoor transmission. For example, maybe wearing a mask outdoors makes it more likely that
you'll wear one indoors. Maybe it guarantees that you'll
have a mask on your person when you decide to walk indoors. Maybe it normalizes the idea
of wearing masks in general. After all, these are the same people that made wearing a mask
full stop, a cultural issue. And of course, when we
talk about laws like these, they undergo rational basis reviews. So, as long as there is some
rational reason for these laws that makes the laws constitutional. And there were probably
lots of other reasons apart from stopping outdoor transmission. And I think even at this point, Tucker isn't arguing against
wearing masks indoors until everyone is vaccinated. And then, there is another logical fallacy of false equivalency where Tucker is conflating the idea that even if there's no
reason to wear a mask outdoors that it being actual child abuse to make children wear masks outdoors. That is not the case. We'll talk about that
more in just a second. And sure, some of this reads as giving people their own medicine, to the extent that he's saying that people who are freaked out about
a deadly global pandemic and they understandably wanted
other people to wear masks but the risks were always asymmetric, not wearing a mask endangered other people in a way that wearing a mask
simply doesn't and never did. But look, it's possible that he is simply satirically saying that
people should call the cops and child protective services when they see children
outdoors wearing masks. Honestly, I can't tell at this point. I don't even know if
Tucker Carlson himself is satire or not, and I can't tell if his
recommendation is satirical. But honestly, it sounds genuine enough to at least talk about whether this recommendation
is illegal or not. So, either way let's have
some fun with this idiocy. But let's delve into what would happen if one of Tucker Carlson's viewers actually called child protective services or the cops on parenting for
putting masks on children. Now, generally speaking, in America, parents have the right to decide matters involving
their children's health, welfare, and education. Although the state will step in when there is abuse,
neglect, or mistreatment, parents have the right to decide what their children listen
to, where they go to church, where they go to school, what they wear, and the medical care that they receive. And Tucker Carlson is
on board with us mostly. He believes it is
authoritarian for the state to require children to be vaccinated but not authoritarian for the state to investigate parents whose
children appear in public with masks. Now, Tucker is correct that
states are empowered to investigate reports of abuse and neglect. Society is rightfully concerned
about children's welfare and federal and state laws
require some professionals who actually mandatorily
report if they suspect abuse. These are known as mandatory reporters and they include people like
doctors, social workers, and teachers. And since we're talking
about the substance of these reports, let's address the elephant in the room. No, making your children wear masks is not child abuse, no more so than making your
child wear a hat or a sweater. And look, given the number
of scratchy wool sweaters that my parents made me
wear when I was young, I can understand why people
wouldn't wanna do it, but it doesn't rise to
the level of child abuse. So, I feel extremely
confident in saying that making your children wear masks
outdoors is not child abuse. Parents can force their
kids to do a lot of things that have no scientific basis, making them do things is not child abuse. For example, if a child doesn't
wanna go trick or treating, a parent could force them
to go trick or treating, and gasp wear a mask. That's not child abuse. Parents don't need a
genuine scientific basis for everything that
they make their kids do. Parents can force their kids
to wash behind their ears with no scientific basis, whether that's helpful or not. They can force kids to eat carrots even though there's no scientific basis that it will help their eyesight. And they can tell kids to turn off the dome light in the car even though it's definitively not illegal as I proved in my other video. Kids don't like doing lots of things that they're forced to do, often because kids are really dumb. And parents are not committing child abuse just because they're
making kids do something that they might not have all of the scientific rationale for. And the same is obviously
true for masks as well. If you think that masks appreciably change your oxygen levels, or have some other deleterious effects, may I recommend the channel Medlife Crisis run by my friend, Dr. Rohin Francis, or the Doctor Mike
channel run by Dr. Mike, who will disabuse you of the notion that wearing a mask could
possibly lead to child abuse. But, you already knew that. Though on the other hand,
scratchy wool sweaters, that's going to have to be
the subject for another video. But, let's talk about mandatory reporting. In 1974, the U.S. enacted the Child Abuse Prevention
and Treatment Act which requires all states to
add provisions to their laws that protect mandatory
reporters from legal retaliation for making a report. This legal protection is called immunity. And without immunity, a
mandatory reporter could be sued if the report was not substantiated
after the investigation. The law recognizes that
in some situations, the mandatory reporter might not be sure about whether a child is
being abused or neglected. Therefore, in most jurisdictions, mandatory reporters are
protected by immunity as long as the report
was made in good faith. If that's true, they can't
be sued or prosecuted. And at least 15 States in
the District of Columbia, the presumption of good
faith applies to everyone, not just mandatory reporters. So, if Joe Schmo watched Tucker Carlson and got the idea to call CPS because his neighbor's child was outside, Oh, no wearing a mask, there would be a presumption that the person acted in good faith, but that's only in 15 States
and that's only a presumption. An aggrieved parent might be able to overcome
that presumption. The unfortunate reality is that sometimes people do make false
reports of abuse and neglect. And that's why there are
laws making it illegal to file false reports of
child abuse, mistreatment, or neglect. The logic behind these laws is that anytime a false report comes in, it distracts from the time and resources investigators could have to pursue real cases of
child abuse and neglect. And at least 29 states in Puerto Rico penalize any person who
willfully or intentionally makes a false report of
child abuse or neglect. 19 States in the Virgin Islands
classify false reporting as a misdemeanor or similar charge. In Florida, Illinois,
Tennessee, and Texas, making a false report of
abuse or neglect is a felony. And in other States, subsequent offenses are
upgraded to felonies. Now, California, Maine,
Minnesota, Montana, and Nebraska don't impose criminal
penalties for false reports. Instead, they strip legal immunity from people who make false claims. This means that individuals
could face criminal penalties for filing false police
reports, perjuring themselves, or being sued for damages. And that means the Karen's
and Tucker's of the world who make false CPS reports could face some serious sanctions. So, what would qualify as a false report? And is that what Tucker is
asking his audience to do? Well, an unfounded or
unsubstantiated report is not the same thing as a false report. So, would the scenario that
Tucker Carlson outlined actually be considered a
false report under the law? Well, generally the legal
standard for determining whether the report is actually false is knowingly and willfully. This definition comes
from Pennsylvania Law and is fairly common. This generally means that the person must
be acting in bad faith. They must they've known
or knew it was likely that the report was false. Erik Wemple of The Washington Post contacted child service
departments in several states and asked whether the
states could investigate a Tucker report for abuse and neglect. Minnesota said wearing a mask or not does not rise to the
level of abuse or neglect. New Jersey said that the wearing
or not wearing of a mask, whether inside or outside, is not by itself considered abusive. And Nevada had a forceful statement explaining why this kind of call could do actual damage. "In no circumstance would a
child wearing a mask in public to reduce or prevent the spread of disease meet Nevada's definition of
abuse or neglect of a child pursuant to NRS 432B. The State's child welfare
agencies have limited resources to address real issues
of abuse and neglect and if Nevada does see a
surge of nonsense calls, children in threat of actual harm will be in increased danger." And that's just to child
protective services. Filing a false police report
is an example of speech that is not protected
by the first amendment. To prove that a person
committed this crime, the prosecutor generally has to show first that the defendant filed a report with an investigative agency
like a police department or local district attorney,
state attorney general or CPS. And second, that the defendant
knew or had reason to believe that the report was false. In some jurisdictions, the prosecutor must also prove that the defendant made
the false statement with the intent to interfere with the criminal justice system. In Virginia for instance, the prosecutor has to show that the caller intended to mislead or interfere with the operation of a
law enforcement agency. And on top of that,
some states have passed so-called anti-Karen
laws to address the raft of spurious 911 calls that have been made. For example, after a new
Yorker named Amy Cooper called 911 to report a black
man was threatening her because he asked her to leash
her dog in Central Park. The mean became a movement to hold people accountable
for making false 911 calls. Now, some cities and
states are passing laws to stop these Karens from
wasting everyone's time, and after the Cooper incident, Virginia was one of the states who added anti-Karen legislation. The Virginia code prohibiting
false police reports was amended to make filing a
false report a Class 6 felony if the report was motivated
by discrimination. "If a person intentionally
gives a false report as to the commission of any crime to any law-enforcement official, causes another to give a false report to any law-enforcement official, or calls or summons any
law-enforcement official against another person because of his race,
religious conviction, gender, disability, gender identity,
sexual orientation, color, or national origin, the person is guilty of a Class 6 felony." In addition to new harsher
criminal penalties, cities like San Francisco
have approved legislation to give people who were targets of a Karen the right to sue the caller. And this of course makes Tucker Carlson the biggest Karen of them all. - Call the police immediately. - Though, in fairness to Tucker Carlson, at least in this particular instance, these calls don't seem to be
motivated by discrimination, rather just an incredibly
misguided right wing culture war. And these are just the
statutory criminal issues. A criminal issue needs to
be brought by the state, the district attorney usually. Then, there's also the possibility that a victim of these reports could just simply sue the
person for civil damages related to the actions. And a parent could bring a
lawsuit for something called intentional infliction
of emotional distress against a person who makes a false report. IIED is a tort claim that
focuses on intentional conduct resulting in extreme emotional distress which causes a mental reaction such as anguish, grief, or fright. To prove a claim for IIED, a plaintiff has to
establish four elements. One, that the defendant acted
intentionally and recklessly, the defendant's conduct
was extreme and outrageous, the defendant's act is
the cause of the distress, and the plaintiff suffered
severe emotional distress as a result of the defendant's conduct. Though, in fairness, it can be incredibly difficult
to make an IIED claim. Some legal commentators
go so far as to call this the civil equivalent of a RICO prosecution because it's just never RICO. But it's difficult for
a plaintiff to prove that conduct was so extreme or outrageous that it caused severe anguish resulting in recoverable damages. Though a plaintiff would probably say that this is the equivalent
of getting swatted where there's the real
possibility of injury or death, and no one likes having the police called for something as ridiculous
as wearing a mask. So under some circumstances, someone might be able to
make a civil case for IIED related to one of these calls. But if you tried to make
a case against someone making a Tucker report, it's not going to be a slam dunk because there's going to
be many defenses available. The first of which is that there's a difference between
making up a complete lie about something that
never factually happened and calling child protective services because of something
that did actually happen that you mistakenly believe gives rise to something called child abuse. And so, the main defense
to any of these charges would be that the person
who reported the masks had a good faith belief that they were witnessing
something that was concerning. After all, they saw it on TV that if
a child is wearing a mask, it must be child abuse. That's the thing about good faith beliefs, is that the person might
be a complete nutcase but if they subjectively
believe that to be the case, they might be operating in good faith. If they said they feared
the child couldn't breathe, or was having an asthma attack, or had faxed to back up their assertion that the child's health was compromised, maybe the report could be legitimate. And it would be incredibly
difficult for someone to prove that the person who was
making the Tucker report was doing it out of spite or doing it to intentionally harm the
parents of the children that were wearing masks. But on the other hand, Tucker's making such
a facially ridiculous, objectively unreasonable argument, that maybe it's not possible for someone to have an actual good
faith of subjective belief under these circumstances. Clearly, wearing a mask doesn't rise to the level of child abuse, no more than wearing a scarf, or a hat, or a mask when you're trick or treating would be child abuse. And if we're talking about
the message that it's sending, are we saying that the
entire continent of Asia is committing child abuse when people are wearing masks
even in non-pandemic times? Or that maybe since it doesn't
actually harm the people that are wearing masks, they wanna send a message. At the end of the day, it's a decision that doesn't harm anyone including the children, and it's a decision
that's up to the parents. I don't know, man. It seems like after this
whole pandemic thing, we should be bending over
backwards to help parents rather than calling the cops on them. At the end of the day, I guess even if you did
make a Tucker report, you'd have a hard time making
out a criminal or civil case but there's likely to
be a small subsection of Tucker watchers that if they follow
through with his advice, they might be subject to
criminal or civil penalties. And, I guess if there's one
thing that we can all agree on, it's that you probably should never do what Tucker Carlson tells you to do. Now, I have some other choice
words for Tucker Carlson over on the extended version of this video that I posted to Nebula. Yo, it's funny that I did an
entire video on Tucker Carlson without actually mentioning
the Tucker Carlson defense, which you now get with a huge discount when you get it with CuriosityStream. Because sometimes talking
about the insane things that Tucker Carlson does is too hot for YouTube, which is why my creator friends and I teamed up to build our own platform where creators don't need to
worry about demonetization or the dreaded algorithm. It's called Nebula and we're thrilled to be
partnering with CuriosityStream. Not only are our Nebula
versions ad free and extended, but they're also released early
before the YouTube versions. Because Nebula is a place where we can experiment with content and put things that we
couldn't put on YouTube. And it features lots of YouTube's top educational-ish creators
like MKBHD, Lindsay Ellis, and Polyphonic. And we're thrilled to be
partnering with CuriosityStream because they're the go-to source
for the best documentaries in long form educational
content on the internet. And now, they have an entire section devoted to unsolved mysteries and crime. If you like my videos, you will love the stuff
on CuriosityStream. And we worked out a deal where if you sign up for CuriosityStream with a link in the description, you'll also get a Nebula
subscription for free. And to be clear, that Nebula subscription is not a trial, it's free for as long as you're
a CuriosityStream member. And right now, CuriosityStream
is offering 26% off of their annual plans. That's less than $15 for the entire year for both CuriosityStream and Nebula. So, if you click the
link in the description, you'll get both CuriosityStream
and Nebula for 26% off, or you can go to
CuriosityStream.com/LegalEagle. It's a great way to support this channel and educational content
directly for under $15 per year. So, just click on the
link in the description. Plus, clicking on that link
really helps out this channel. So, do you agree with my analysis? Are you gonna be making a Tucker report when you see a child wearing a mask? Leave your objections in the comments and check out this playlist over here with all of my other real law reviews about the legal issues in the news. So, just click on this playlist
or I'll see you in court.
haven't watch legal eagle in a while; got halfway through this video and was like "what when did legal eagle become breadtube" and came here to check if someone had posted it
Anyone else got all excited seeing Tucker Carlson and "Go to jail" in the same sentence?
legal smeagol
Legal Eagle gets more based every video. And he’s such a daddi 😍
I'm glad this guy is lefty
I for one welcome daddy eagle to breadtube!
OMG he used the dramatic groundhog stare. LMAO.
Anyway, a big deal here is being made about the idea that making false reports wastes law enforcement's time. Imagine thinking that's a bad thing. (But of course the liberal legal system is going to make that the serious crime. 🙄)
It's far worse of an issue that the cops might actually show up. That's putting people in serious danger of harm and even death. Child abuse is serious and needs to be addressed...by the community, with strong action and support. Never call the cops. Period. There are alternatives, and you'd do well to make use of them and develop more, rather than asking the state to use oppressive violence against anyone.
(looks at my Halloween costume)