The Tribune’s March 1 editorial argues that Utah’s proposed HB331 “criminalize[s] public protests” and creates a “double standard” by restricting masks for demonstrators while federal agents may still wear them. That framing misstates both the bill’s content and the legal reality.
HB331 does not suppress peaceful assembly. If it’s enacted, Utahns would remain free to march, chant, leaflet, and petition their government. But people would not be able to conceal their identities in public while engaging in conduct that easily escalates into — and often is designed to create — intimidation and harassment. Anonymity lowers inhibitions and makes it easier for a small number of bad actors to hijack otherwise lawful gatherings, precisely because concealment shields them from accountability.
That’s why anti-masking laws have a long American pedigree. They were first enacted in response to organized masked intimidation — most infamously the Klan — because concealment enabled coordinated threats and violence. Courts have repeatedly recognized that generally applicable anti-masking rules can coexist with the First Amendment, which protects speech and assembly but does not guarantee a right to anonymous participation in public disorder.
Meanwhile, the question of whether federal agents should ever mask is a legitimate one, but it’s irrelevant to this debate. Federal law enforcement practices involve operational considerations that don’t apply to private demonstrators, and are, in any event, beyond a state Legislature’s authority to regulate. Utah can’t dictate federal protocols, but it can set clear rules for conduct in its own public spaces.
Ilya Shapiro and Tal Fortgang, Manhattan Institute, New York