Loren Lippincott
In recent years, the enactment of anti-masking laws in various U.S. states has sparked debate, particularly when it comes to masks worn in the context of public protests. These laws, designed to prevent individuals from concealing their identities during demonstrations, aim to enhance public safety and accountability. While critics argue the laws infringe on free speech and privacy, supporters maintain that anti-masking laws are essential for maintaining order, deterring criminal activity and protecting communities. States like North Carolina, Florida, and Ohio have either enforced or proposed such laws, reflecting a growing recognition of their importance in today’s complex political landscape.
Anti-masking laws have historical roots in combating groups like the Ku Klux Klan, whose members used hoods to anonymize their acts of violence and intimidation. Enacted as early as 1845 in New York, these laws were initially crafted to address public safety threats, such as tenant farmer revolts.
Today, their relevance persists as modern protests, from pro-Palestinian/anti-Israeli demonstrations to other politically charged gatherings, sometimes involve masked individuals engaging in disruptive or even criminal behavior. The anonymity provided by masks can embolden bad actors, shielding them from accountability while intimidating others.
In North Carolina legislation was recently passed to repeal COVID-era exemptions, because masked protesters were exploiting those allowances to conceal their identities during disruptive acts. One primary argument for passing anti-masking laws is the fact that masks hinder law enforcement officers from identifying individuals who commit crimes during protests. States like California, Michigan and Ohio now have statutes that criminalize maskwearing when paired with intent to commit a crime, such as vandalism or assault. These laws do not broadly prohibit masks but target specific contexts where concealment facilitates illegal activity. For instance, Florida’s law makes it an offense to wear a mask with intent to harass or intimidate, ensuring that peaceful protesters are not unduly restricted while addressing those who exploit anonymity for criminal purposes. This precision in the writing of laws balances public safety with individual rights, allowing law enforcement to focus on genuine threats.
Moreover, anti-masking laws address the challenges posed by modern surveillance technologies. While critics argue that masks protect protesters from doxxing or retaliation, advancements like facial recognition and gait analysis often render masks ineffective against law enforcement identification. (Doxxing is publishing private information on someone, often with malicious intent). Tools like Clearview AI, used exclusively by police, can identify individuals even with the face partially obscured. By mandating visibility, states ensure that those engaging in unlawful acts cannot hide behind anonymity, fostering a safer environment for both protesters and bystanders.
Furthermore, anti-masking laws have a deterrent effect which enhances public safety.
In states like Georgia, where the Supreme Court has upheld such laws in 1990, mask-wearing is seen as an act of intimidation when done with harmful intent.
This legal precedent underscores the fact that anonymity can amplify fear, particularly when protests escalate into violence or property damage. By requiring transparency, states like Virginia and South Carolina, which have similar laws, discourage behaviors that threaten public order while respecting exceptions for medical, religious or professional purposes. Critics of such laws often cite First Amendment concerns, arguing that anti-masking laws impact free speech by exposing protesters to harassment.
However, courts have consistently upheld these laws as constitutional when public safety is at stake, as seen in Georgia’s 1990 ruling. Exemptions for health, religious or cultural practices, as are in place in Louisiana and Minnesota, further mitigate overreach.
Additionally, the risk of doxxing, while real, is not unique to protesters and can be addressed through other legal protections, such as anti-doxxing laws, rather than blanket allowances for masking.
In conclusion, anti-masking laws in force in states like North Carolina, Florida and Ohio serve as critical tools for ensuring accountability during protests.
By targeting those who use masks to evade identification while committing crimes, these laws strike a balance between public safety and individual freedoms. As protests grow in frequency and intensity (even in our “Nebraska Nice” communities), such measures are vital for protecting communities while upholding the rule of law. Nebraska needs to join the growing number of other states in enacting anti-masking laws!
Loren Lippincott represents Legislative District 34 in the Nebraska State Senate. Read his column in the Nance County Journal.