Maryland lawmakers review Unmask Hate Act targeting masked intimidation and harassment

The Maryland General Assembly's Judicial Proceedings Committee convened on February 26, 2025, to discuss the proposed Unmask Hate Act, a bill aimed at addressing masked intimidation and violence. The session featured a range of testimonies from supporters and opponents of the legislation, highlighting the complex interplay of civil rights, public safety, and health concerns.

The meeting began with a presentation from a representative of the National Urban League and the Anti-Defamation League, who emphasized the historical alliance between African American and Jewish communities in combating hate and violence. The speaker recounted personal family history to illustrate the long-standing struggle against groups like the Ku Klux Klan, which used masks to conceal their identities while committing acts of terror. The Unmask Hate Act is positioned as a necessary response to a resurgence of masked hate groups, including the Proud Boys and Patriot Front, which have been linked to violent incidents.

Supporters of the bill, including leaders from the Greater Washington Urban League and the Greater Baltimore Urban League, argued that the legislation is essential for protecting vulnerable communities from intimidation and harassment. They pointed to the historical context of masked violence and the need for legal measures to deter such behavior.

However, the session also featured significant opposition from various stakeholders, including individuals from marginalized communities. Critics expressed concerns that the bill could disproportionately impact those who wear masks for health reasons, particularly immunocompromised individuals. Testimonies highlighted fears that law enforcement could misuse the legislation to target and criminalize individuals simply for wearing masks, leading to increased harassment and discrimination.

Opponents argued that the bill's provisions could chill free speech and disproportionately affect marginalized groups, including people of color and LGBTQ+ individuals. They raised alarms about the potential for racial profiling and the subjective nature of determining intent behind mask-wearing, which could lead to unjust legal consequences.

The committee heard from numerous witnesses, including health professionals and civil rights advocates, who articulated the risks associated with criminalizing mask-wearing in public spaces. Many emphasized that existing laws already address harassment and violence without the need for additional penalties specifically targeting masked individuals.

As the meeting concluded, the committee members were left to weigh the testimonies and consider the implications of the Unmask Hate Act. The discussions underscored the ongoing tension between ensuring public safety and protecting individual rights, particularly in a climate where hate and violence remain pressing concerns. The committee's decision on the bill will be closely watched as it reflects broader societal debates about civil liberties and community safety in Maryland.