State Rep. Josh Williams, a Republican from Sylvania Township, has introduced House Bill 236, a measure that would create a new offense of “masked harassment” and enhance penalties for certain crimes committed while a person is masked or disguised. The bill was introduced in April 2025 and is pending in the Ohio House, where testimony has not yet been taken.
What the bill would do
House Bill 236 would add a new section to Ohio law defining “masked harassment” as purposely harassing, intimidating, abusing, or threatening another person while wearing a mask or other device that hides or conceals the person’s face or identity, when done for the purpose of placing another person or group in reasonable fear of physical harm or mental distress. The new offense would be a first-degree misdemeanor, the most serious misdemeanor level in Ohio.
The proposal also creates a new sentencing “specification” for people convicted of felony offenses who are found to have worn a mask or disguise during the crime, requiring judges to add an extra one-year prison term on top of the underlying sentence. In addition, the bill would modify the existing aggravated riot statute to increase penalties when a person participates in an aggravated riot while masked, making the offense a fifth-degree felony, or a third-degree felony if the masked participant acts with the purpose to commit or facilitate an offense of violence.
The legislation further touches trespassing laws, adding “masked trespassing” to reach people who unlawfully enter or remain on property while concealing their identity, subjecting them to heightened penalties compared with standard criminal trespass. HB 236 would amend multiple sections of the Revised Code, including provisions dealing with juvenile sentencing and adult felony sentencing, to incorporate the new masked‑offense enhancements.
Supporters’ rationale
Williams and other backers argue the bill responds to incidents in which individuals have used masks or face coverings to intimidate residents, protestors, or public officials while making it harder for law enforcement to identify them. They contend the measure is aimed at conduct, not expression, and say it is narrowly tailored to situations where masked individuals cross the line into threats, harassment, or violence.
Supporters also frame the bill as a deterrent in an era of viral videos and online organizing, where they say some offenders feel emboldened to hide behind masks during protests, riots, or targeted demonstrations at private homes. By tying extra penalties to the use of masks or disguises during crimes, they argue, HB 236 would remove what they describe as a layer of anonymity that encourages bad actors.
Civil liberties concerns
Civil liberties groups, including the ACLU of Ohio and other advocacy organizations that have opposed similar “masked” offense bills, warn that such measures can infringe on First Amendment rights and disproportionately impact protesters. They note that individuals may wear masks for political expression, religious observance, or health and safety reasons, and worry that the added penalties could discourage people from participating in demonstrations.
Legal scholars also point out that terms such as “harassing” or “intimidating,” if not carefully defined and enforced, can sweep in constitutionally protected speech, particularly in emotionally charged public debates. Opponents have urged lawmakers to include clear exemptions and strict intent requirements to ensure the statute targets true threats and violence rather than robust, even if uncomfortable, political expression.
Exemptions and next steps
The bill analysis prepared for lawmakers notes that HB 236 includes exemptions for certain activities where face coverings are common or necessary, such as performances, authorized public events, or uses tied to employment or safety, though the exact contours of those exemptions would be fleshed out in committee. It also clarifies that the masked‑offense specification applies only when the mask is worn for the purpose of facilitating the crime, not for unrelated reasons.
HB 236 has been assigned to committee but, as of mid-February 2026, had not yet received proponent or opponent testimony, leaving questions about how members in both parties will line up on the proposal. If advanced by the House and ultimately signed into law, Ohio would join a growing number of states experimenting with laws that attach additional consequences to criminal conduct carried out under the cover of a mask or disguise.