1. United States
2. Mo.
3. Letter

I write in strong opposition to HB2848 (Dolan), SB1150 (Burger), SB1043 (Washington), and HB2564 (Price), specifically the creation of the offense of “masked intimidation.” While this bill purports to address genuine safety concerns, it is a dangerous and overbroad piece of legislation that will criminalize protected speech and activism, disproportionately harm marginalized communities, and chill essential public participation. The bill defines masked intimidation as intentionally harassing, intimidating, or threatening another person while concealing one’s face. On its surface, this may seem neutral. But we must ask: who is the target of this law? In practice, this statute will be used not against actual threats, but against protesters and demonstrators exercising their First Amendment rights. Throughout history, face coverings have been a critical tool for marginalized people protesting against powerful interests. From workers in the labor movement to LGBTQ+ activists at Pride marches, and from disability rights advocates to modern racial justice demonstrators, anonymity has protected individuals from retaliation, doxxing, and violence. This bill will force vulnerable people to choose between their safety and their right to assemble. The so-called exceptions in this bill do not solve the problem. They carve out space for holiday costumes, winter sports, and theatrical productions, but they offer no meaningful protection for political protesters. A person worried about being identified while speaking truth to power does not fit neatly into “occupation, trade, or profession.” The bill’s inclusion of face coverings for health and safety is a token acknowledgment, but the law’s broad language will still invite selective enforcement against activists. We also cannot ignore the racial dynamics of this bill. Black and brown communities, already overpoliced and subjected to disproportionate surveillance, will bear the brunt of this legislation. Officers empowered to stop, question, and arrest anyone whose face covering they deem suspicious will apply this law unevenly. This bill is a solution in search of a problem. Missouri already has laws against harassment, intimidation, threats, and assault. We do not need a new crime focused on what someone is wearing. We need investments in community safety, mental health services, and economic opportunity—not laws that criminalize appearance and expand the carceral state. The First Amendment protection listed in subsection 4 is not a shield. It is a symbolic gesture that will carry little weight in a courtroom when an activist is charged with a misdemeanor for wearing a mask at a rally. If the legislature truly believes in constitutional rights, it should not pass laws that invite their violation. I urge you to oppose these bills. Protect the right to protest. Protect the right to anonymity. Do not criminalize the face of dissent.