By Lucretia Hughes Klucken
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — California lawmakers have sent Gov. Gavin Newsom a controversial bill that supporters say will protect immigration-service workers from doxxing and violence but critics warn could intimidate journalists investigating organizations supported by taxpayer money.
Assembly Bill 2624, officially titled “Privacy for immigration support services providers,” was presented to Newsom on Wednesday after passing the Democratic-controlled Legislature.
Republicans have labeled the measure the “Stop Nick Shirley Act,” referring to independent journalist Nick Shirley, whose videos have focused on alleged fraud and abuse involving government-funded service providers.
The bill was authored by Democratic Assemblymember Mia Bonta of Oakland, the wife of California Attorney General Rob Bonta.
It would expand California’s Safe at Home address-confidentiality program to certain immigration-support service providers, employees and volunteers who face threats or harassment because of their work.
Qualified participants could use a substitute mailing address in public records rather than disclosing where they live. Similar protections already apply to domestic violence survivors and certain health care workers.
Protecting people’s home addresses from criminals is reasonable. No journalist needs to publish where a worker’s children sleep to investigate how taxpayer money is being spent.
The controversy involves provisions restricting the online publication or distribution of a protected worker’s personal information or image under specified circumstances.
Contrary to some viral headlines, AB 2624 does not simply make it illegal to record an immigration-services employee or expose fraud. The criminal provision requires the government to establish that the information was posted with the specific intent that another person imminently use it to commit a violent crime or make a likely threat of violence.
A violation could carry a fine of up to $10,000, imprisonment or both. If the publication leads to bodily injury, the offense could become a felony carrying a fine of up to $50,000 and possible imprisonment.
Those intent requirements are important and should not be ignored.
However, critics argue that the bill’s broad definitions, potential civil claims and lack of an explicit exemption for journalists could still create a chilling effect.
Independent reporters rarely have corporate attorneys standing behind them. The threat of being dragged into court and forced to prove their intent could be enough to discourage them from recording workers, identifying decision-makers or questioning organizations that receive public funds.
That is where California must be especially careful.
Doxxing is not journalism. Threatening people is not journalism. Inciting violence is not journalism.
Recording activity visible from a public location, asking questions and publishing evidence of potential fraud are journalism. Those actions should remain protected whether the reporter works for a major newspaper, a television network or an independent online platform.
Government cannot be allowed to decide that only approved media organizations qualify as members of the press.
The First Amendment protects the freedom of the press, not merely corporations wealthy enough to employ a newsroom. Citizen journalists have increasingly filled gaps left by traditional outlets, particularly when local news organizations lack the staff or willingness to investigate government contractors and nonprofit organizations.
Shirley gained national attention after publishing videos questioning whether publicly funded service providers were operating as claimed. His methods and conclusions may be debated, but public officials do not get to silence uncomfortable questions by placing new legal risks around the people being investigated.
Bonta has rejected accusations that her legislation targets Shirley or legitimate journalism. She has said the measure addresses workers who have been followed, harassed or threatened because they assist immigrant communities.
The bill’s supporters have a legitimate interest in preventing violence. Its opponents have an equally legitimate interest in ensuring that privacy protections are not transformed into shields against accountability.
Both concerns can be addressed.
Newsom should demand clear language stating that lawful newsgathering, recording from public places, reporting matters of public concern and publishing evidence of suspected fraud are not prohibited unless they are directly tied to a genuine threat or intentional incitement of imminent violence.
The bill should also distinguish a protected home address from a person’s image captured while performing publicly funded work at a business or organizational location.
There is a fundamental difference between exposing where someone lives and showing who is responsible for distributing millions of taxpayer dollars.
California taxpayers have a right to know which organizations receive their money, what services those organizations provide and whether the public is receiving what it was promised.
If fraud is occurring, the state should be helping journalists expose it—not creating additional legal uncertainty for the people asking questions.
AB 2624 is not yet law. Newsom may sign it, veto it or allow it to become law without his signature. The enrolled bill would establish the expanded confidentiality program beginning Oct. 1, 2027.
The governor should not sign it without ensuring that its protections cannot be manipulated to hide waste, misconduct or fraud.
Protect workers from genuine threats. Punish anyone who incites violence.
But never confuse public accountability with harassment or investigative journalism with a crime.
Original article
Comments