Montana just did something no other state has done: it turned your ability to own and use computers, AI tools, and computational resources into a legally protected right. When Governor Greg Gianforte put his signature on Senate Bill 212 this year, Montana became the first state to formally protect computational freedom under law.
Big Sky Country Goes Big on Digital Freedom
Montana is known as having a moderate data privacy law that’s in line with the other frameworks but this is the first of it’s kind in the USA. In most states, there’s nothing stopping lawmakers from deciding tomorrow that you need a license to mine cryptocurrency, that your AI experiments are illegal, or that running certain software on your own hardware violates some new regulation. Montana just slammed that door shut.
So What Does This Actually Mean?
Here’s the practical reality: if Montana’s government wants to tell you what you can or can’t do with your computing power on your own property, they now have to prove it’s absolutely necessary for public safety and that there’s no less restrictive way to handle whatever problem they’re worried about.
That’s a massive hurdle. It’s the same legal standard courts use when someone tries to restrict your free speech. You don’t get to meet that bar by saying “we think this might be a good idea” or “other states are doing it.” You need hard evidence of a real, immediate threat.
The law covers everything from the hardware sitting on your desk to the software you’re running, the AI models you’re training, and yes, even those blockchain nodes humming away in your basement. As long as you’re not actively harming anyone or overloading public infrastructure, the state has to leave you alone.
Not a Free-For-All, Though
Before anyone panics about unregulated AI running wild, the law includes some common-sense guardrails. If you’re using AI to control critical infrastructure like power grids or water systems, you need a risk management policy, a kill switch that lets humans take over, and annual safety reviews.
That’s reasonable. Nobody wants an algorithm controlling the electrical grid without adult supervision. But notice what the law doesn’t do: it doesn’t require you to register your laptop, get permission to download open-source AI models, or submit your weekend coding projects for government approval.
The People Behind the Push
Senator Daniel Zolnikov championed the bill, framing it as an extension of Montana’s broader commitment to individual liberty. Governor Gianforte backed the measure as protecting citizens’ right to build, compute, and innovate on their own property without unnecessary government interference.
The Frontier Institute, a Montana think tank focused on free-market policy, helped draft the language. Their argument? Computation isn’t some exotic new category of human activity that needs its own special regulatory framework. It’s just people thinking and communicating using modern tools, which means it’s already covered by existing constitutional protections for property and expression.
California Went the Other Direction
The contrast with other states is striking. While Montana was passing this law, California was debating SB 1047, which would have imposed heavy regulations on AI development before the governor ultimately vetoed it. States like California, Virginia, and New York have pursued regulatory frameworks involving licensing requirements, mandatory audits, and safety testing protocols.
These are two fundamentally different philosophies. One says: “Protect people’s ability to innovate unless there’s a proven problem.” The other says: “Control innovation unless we’re sure it’s safe.” Montana picked door number one.
This Could Spread
New Hampshire is already working on a constitutional amendment (CACR6) that would enshrine computational rights directly into the state’s founding document. Representative Keith Ammon called Montana’s move “the kind of bold leadership that sets the tone” for other states.
The RightToCompute.ai campaign, which helped push the Montana law, argues that using a computer is simply an extension of human thought—no different in principle from picking up a pen or opening your mouth to speak. If you accept that premise, then heavy-handed restrictions on computation start looking a lot like censorship.
Why This Matters for Regular People
You might be thinking: “I’m not running a data center or training AI models. Why should I care?” Here’s why: laws like this establish precedent. They draw lines that protect everyday activities before those activities become controversial.
Ten years ago, cryptocurrency mining was a hobby for tech enthusiasts. Today, some municipalities are trying to ban it outright. Twenty years ago, encryption was considered munitions. What seems harmless today—tinkering with open-source AI, running distributed computing projects, hosting your own services—could be tomorrow’s regulatory target.
Montana’s law says: figure out if something is actually dangerous before you start restricting it. Prove your case. Meet a high standard. Don’t just regulate because you can.
The Economic Angle
There’s also a business case here. By providing clear legal protections, Montana positions itself as an attractive destination for tech companies, AI startups, data centers, and cryptocurrency operations.
When companies are deciding where to invest millions in computing infrastructure, regulatory uncertainty is a deal-breaker. Montana just put up a huge “Open for Business” sign for the tech sector. Whether that translates into actual economic development remains to be seen, but the signal is clear.
The Skeptics Have Questions
Not everyone’s celebrating. Environmental groups worry the law might make it harder for communities to address legitimate concerns about data centers—things like water usage, energy consumption, and noise. The counterargument is that the law explicitly allows regulation when there’s a proven compelling interest. You just have to do the work of proving it.
Some critics also note that the law doesn’t completely prohibit age verification or certain other restrictions, as long as they meet the high legal bar. So it’s not quite the absolute protection that some advocates might want.
What Comes Next
Montana lawmakers introduced 48 bills related to AI this session, with multiple bills becoming law or awaiting signature. The Right to Compute Act is one piece of a broader conversation the state is having about technology, innovation, and government’s proper role.
Other states are watching. The question isn’t whether they’ll respond, but how. Will they follow Montana’s lead and protect computational freedom? Or will they go the California route and try to get ahead of potential problems with preemptive regulation?
There’s no obvious right answer. Technology does create real risks. AI can be misused. Cryptocurrency mining does consume energy. Data centers do impact local communities. The question is whether you address those issues through broad restrictions on computational freedom or through narrow, targeted regulations aimed at specific, proven harms.
Montana made its choice. We’re about to find out if other states agree—or if Big Sky Country stands alone on this one.
The Bottom Line
For the first time, a state legislature looked at the rapid evolution of computing, AI, and digital technology and said: “The default should be freedom, not permission.” That’s a significant philosophical statement, regardless of where you stand on the specifics.
Whether this becomes the standard approach or remains a Montana quirk depends on what happens next. But one thing’s certain: the conversation about computational rights just got a lot more interesting. And Montana—not exactly known as a tech hub—just put itself at the center of it.
