California’s New Law and Free Speech Concerns

California has once again attempted to impose restrictions on dissenting speech, and people are starting to take notice.

Last week, Governor Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 2624, humorously referred to as the “Stop Nick Shirley Act.” This legislation introduces unique privacy protections for eligible immigration-service workers who report threats or harassment. Moreover, it establishes a structured process for these workers to request limitations on the publication of their personal details—like their names, jobs, photos, and videos.

Shirley argues that this law poses significant challenges for investigative journalism, and he’s got a point.

Imagine if he investigates a nonprofit entity funded by taxpayer dollars, documents his findings, and poses critical queries regarding financial accountability. Under this new law, any individual from that organization could potentially present him with a demand to prevent the publication of his name and image. If Shirley proceeds with his reporting and that individual claims to be fearful or experiences threats, he could end up facing legal repercussions simply for doing his job.

That would be a troubling piece of legislation.

Yet, the final text of the law is not as expansive as Shirley suggests. Though it still raises substantial concerns, it’s essential to point that out.

A person can’t just hand over a document to halt the release of a video. The enacted version stipulates a “specific intent” must exist to provoke imminent harm or make threats that create a reasonable fear for someone’s safety.

This distinction will be crucial when courts inevitably confront First Amendment challenges.

Another noteworthy aspect to consider? The original proposals from California’s Democrats.

The Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, which has been at the center of Shirley’s investigations, wasn’t just a passive supporter of A.B. 2624; it was, in fact, one of the bill’s co-sponsors, according to a legislative analysis.

This means that an organization receiving millions in taxpayer funding played a role in creating a legal framework that may allow it to demand strict controls over the publication of their identifying details.

That’s certainly cause for concern.

When the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression reviewed A.B. 2624 earlier this year, the initial language was even more problematic. The earlier version permitted a “protected person” to stop someone from publishing their “personal information” or images for a duration of four years—with no requirement for specific intent.

FIRE expressed worries that the bill could suppress criticism and affect newsworthy reporting, photographs, and common social media activity. The original text even included an exemption for journalists under California’s shield laws.

If the bill merely aimed to prevent threats and doxxing, why was there a need for a special exemption for the press?

The situation prompted public outcry. FIRE raised their voice, alongside UCLA First Amendment expert Eugene Volokh and various Republicans, including Assemblyman Carl DeMaio from San Diego, who made their criticisms loudly known.

As a result, Democrats made some concessions—they included the specific intent requirement, narrowed the restrictions on publication, and eliminated the exemption for journalists. Now, FIRE acknowledges that the modifications keep the law from being overtly unconstitutional, while still cautioning that the written-demand process could stifle lawful expression.

“Could”?

During a lively rally at the Capitol, Shirley asserted that it will indeed have that effect. Newsom’s office, however, dismissed critics, claiming they were fabricating conspiracy theories or simply misreading the law.

That’s rather audacious coming from an administration defending a law that underwent significant transformation to withstand First Amendment scrutiny.

But A.B. 2624 is just one instance. In 2024, Chris Kohls, known online as “MrReagan USA,” edited an obviously satirical AI-generated political ad featuring Kamala Harris, which Elon Musk shared. Newsom viewed it and asserted that such manipulation should be outlawed.

When he signed A.B. 2839, he proclaimed, “I just signed a bill to make this illegal in California.” Yet, a federal judge quickly blocked the law on free speech grounds, later issuing a permanent injunction against its enforcement regarding Kohls and others involved.

Newsom’s glaring honesty was somewhat refreshing; he saw political commentary he didn’t like, announced it should be illegal, and endeavored to enact that through state power.

He might have succeeded too—if it weren’t for that meddlesome First Amendment.

Furthermore, there’s the case of Mirabelli v. Bonta, involving a law allowing schools to keep students’ gender transitions secret from their parents. California staunchly defended this law, but the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately suggested the parents had solid constitutional claims.

Different topic, similar urge to censor.

Democrats seem to believe they can dictate what can and cannot be said.

Thus, it’s crucial not to confuse retreat with innocence.

The Democrats didn’t begin with a carefully crafted A.B. 2624 aimed at genuinely protecting innocent parties. Instead, they reached far into the realms of protected speech and backed down only when caught red-handed.

If the root of the issue was about doxxing and threats, why did the initial proposal span names, job titles, images, and videos? Why was there an inclination for a journalist exemption? And why does the law still embody a four-year “do not publish me” request if only threats or incitement fall under punishment?

Patrick Henry once advised vigilance towards government power: “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel.”

This outlook is particularly pertinent in California.

Kohls and Mirabelli’s cases were no mere coincidences. Similarly, A.B. 2624 wasn’t a chance infringement on the First Amendment. Scratching the surface reveals the censor in many “liberals.”

Time and again, California Democrats attempt to harness state power to regulate speech, publication, parody, or disclosure, retreating only when faced with legal repercussions or public dissent.

The First Amendment was precisely designed to guard against such governmental overreach.