In a state where it’s illegal to kill a housefly within 160 feet of a church without a license, it should come as a surprise to no one that the Ohio government is after something of equal importance: your masks!
On Tuesday, Ohio State Reps. Phil Plummer (R-Dayton) and George Lang (R-Cincinnati) introduced House Bill 362 (HB 362), legislation that would “create the crime of masked intimidation, a misdemeanor of the first degree.” The bill would prohibit individuals from wearing masks or disguises in the following instances:
- To obstruct the execution of the law.
- Intimidate, hinder or interrupt a person in the performance of the person's legal duty.
- Prevent a person from exercising the rights granted to them by the Constitution or the laws of this state.
On the surface, HB 362 appears benign. After all, those in the line of duty have clear access to the identity of individuals to better conduct their jobs, especially in riotous situations, right? Wrong. It is unconstitutional, through and through, to dictate such extreme boundaries to one’s freedom of speech and association.
The potential implications of HB 362 becoming law are dangerous. In fact, such legislation harkens back to the laws of authoritarian governments across the globe, namely, China.
Just last week, in fact, the highly contentious situation in Hong Kong took a nasty turn when Chief Executive Carrie Lam invoked her emergency powers to ban the wearing of masks at protests. 77 people have been arrested as a result.
America was founded on the principles of civil disobedience. Since then, nearly every monumental shift forward in liberty has resulted from ordinary citizens breaking the law. Moreover, those who participate in these movements put themselves in incredible danger. Preventing them from masking their identity to protect themselves strips those activists of one of their few safeguards against dangerous threats.
Additionally, the bill establishes loose rules for what is and isn’t an “obstruction of the law” or interruption to the performance of someone’s “legal duty.” When does a mask or disguise cross the line of legal and illegal? What about groups that use masks to identify their movement, such as Anonymous?
Furthermore, in an era of ever-increasing mass surveillance, a mask and disguise helps to shield those actively engaging in civil disobedience from being added to government databases that strip individuals of even more of their freedoms.
The bill would also most likely face legal challenges if passed. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Alabama (1958), for example, sets a precedent that flies in the face of HB 362. The case centered around the NAACP refusing to supply Alabama with its membership lists, out of fears that said members would face harassment and assault as a result of their participation in the organization. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of the NAACP.
The same logic of NAACP v. Alabama applies to the principle of wearing masks and disguises, too. If an individual fears that their participation in a particular event would endanger them if made public, they should have a right to their anonymity.
One of the best ways to change the law is to break it. Two Ohio State Reps. fail to realize that.
Matthew Geiger is a freshman studying economics at Ohio University. Please note that the views and opinions of the columnists do not reflect those ofThe Post. Want to talk to Matthew? Tweet him @Mattg444.
