CA and the 1st Amendment

Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy

Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (2)

Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!

No. of Recommendations: 5

Meanwhile, Gavin Newsom just signed the most egregious anti-1st Amendment bill in some time:

msn.com - Californians torch gavin newsom s chilling stop nick shirley act teeing up huge clash with feds

Gavin Newsom has been slammed for signing a controversial privacy law that critics have branded the “Stop Nick Shirley Act” — setting the stage for a potential First Amendment fight. The law, introduced by Democratic Assemblymember Mia Bonta, expands the state’s address-protection program to immigration-service workers.

usatoday.com - California ab nick shirley free speech controversy
Assembly Bill 2624, introduced by Assemblymember Mia Bonta, D‑Oakland, does not name Shirley but has been widely discussed in connection with his immigration‑related content, which critics say has drawn attention — and sometimes harassment — toward immigration support organizations. The measure would extend existing privacy protections to immigration service providers, building on laws that already safeguard certain health care workers, volunteers, and patients who face threats, harassment, or violence because of their affiliation with protected facilities. Critics argue the bill could chill free speech online, while supporters say it is narrowly targeted at preventing harassment — not limiting public discussion.

Of course, we should look to the bill itself:

https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB2624/id/3371241

How might it be problematic? (CoPilot summary)
First Amendment Concerns Raised Against AB 2624 Critics of AB 2624 — the “Stop Nick Shirley Act” — argue that certain provisions could violate the First Amendment by restricting lawful speech, chilling investigative journalism, and imposing prior restraint on public information. Key sections and alleged constitutional issues +2 : Content‑based restrictions on information AB 2624 would exempt employee names, addresses, and similar identifiers of designated immigration service providers from public records, and prohibit online posting of their personal information or images when done as “harassment” +1 . First Amendment concern: If applied broadly, this could be seen as a content‑based regulation of speech because it targets the information itself rather than the conduct, potentially violating the requirement that such restrictions be narrowly tailored and serve a compelling interest. Takedown and penalty mechanisms The bill authorizes damage awards and takedown demands for online content that discloses such information, even when the content is lawful reporting or citizen journalism +1 . First Amendment concern: Critics say this creates chilling effects and could deter lawful publication, especially for “citizen journalists” without statutory shield law protections, effectively imposing prior restraint on speech. Expansion of recording restrictions Assemblyman Carl DeMaio warned the bill could expand restrictions on recording inside certain taxpayer‑funded facilities, potentially penalizing journalists for documenting misconduct KMPH KMPH . First Amendment concern: This could burden the freedom of the press by limiting the ability to gather and publish information about government or public programs. Overbreadth and vagueness Legal analysis notes that while the law’s intent is to protect individuals from harm, its broad language may reach lawful reporting and expression, making it overbroad and vague under First Amendment doctrine SSRN SSRN . First Amendment concern: Overbroad laws risk being struck down because they chill protected speech beyond what is necessary to achieve the stated goal. Summary: The sections most often cited as potentially unconstitutional are those that (a) remove certain personal identifiers from public records, (b) allow takedown demands and penalties for sharing such information, and (c) expand restrictions on recording in certain facilities. These provisions are argued to be content‑based, overbroad, and chilling, thus raising serious First Amendment questions

Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!

Print the post Share: X · FacebookFB · LinkedInLI · WhatsAppWApp · Email

Members reply directly to Dope1 here — and replies get answered. Reading is free; so is joining the conversation. Join Shrewd'm »

This community has written 86,214 posts about US Policy. The article-length ones it recommended most:

It's going to get worse · 33 recs · 2025

G’day Donny · 30 recs · 2026

Old Related Story · 28 recs · 2026

HCR is a national treasure · 27 recs · 2025

Fascism in America · 27 recs · 2025

Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (2)

Prev | Next

Announcements

US Policy FAQ

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.