Staff Reports
Governor Gavin Newsom quietly signed Assembly Bill 2624 into law, and California conservatives were not impressed. The bill — now being mocked as the “Stop Nick Shirley Act” — promises to shield workers at immigration support groups from doxxing. Supporters call it protection. Critics call it a blunt instrument that could gag journalists and citizen investigators.
What just happened: AB 2624 becomes law
AB 2624, authored by Assemblymember Mia Bonta, expands California’s Safe at Home idea to cover “immigration support services providers, employees, and volunteers.” The law makes it unlawful to publish personal information about those people and allows civil damages — with a floor of $4,000 — and possible criminal penalties in some cases. The Secretary of State will start taking program applications on July 1, 2027. Days after the signing, Senator Tony Strickland and independent journalist Nick Shirley held a protest at the State Capitol to oppose the law. The nickname “Stop Nick Shirley Act” stuck fast because many see this as a direct hit on independent video reporters.
Supporters’ pitch: stop doxxing, protect helpers
Democrats and the bill’s backers say this is about safety. They point to real threats: staff and volunteers at nonprofits can be harassed or threatened after their information is posted online. They argue AB 2624 mirrors protections already used by domestic violence survivors and medical workers. That pitch sounds reasonable on the surface: no one wants vigilante harassment or violence. But good policy needs clear lines. This bill leaves lines fuzzy.
Critics’ case: vague language and a chill on press freedom
Here’s the problem conservatives keep raising. AB 2624 defines “personal information” very broadly and creates a civil weapon with a guaranteed damages floor. Independent journalists like Nick Shirley warn that routine reporting, undercover work, and legitimate investigations could be chilled. Yes, the bill includes a carve‑out tied to the reporter‑shield law in Evidence Code Section 1070, but that doesn’t erase the risk. A broad statute plus a private right of action means every freelancer, podcaster or citizen investigator faces the choice: stay quiet or risk a costly lawsuit. That’s not protection — it’s permission slips for officials and nonprofits to avoid scrutiny.
What comes next and why conservatives should watch closely
Expect legal fights and rule‑making drama. Opponents are already talking about constitutional challenges focused on the First Amendment. The Secretary of State’s implementing rules will matter a lot — those rules will show whether this law truly protects people or simply hides agencies and groups from public view. Conservatives should also note the political angle: when the government gets to pick which groups are immune from exposure, transparency loses and bad actors can hide. If you value free speech and honest reporting, this is one to follow. And if you like your watchdogs muzzled with a $4,000 bill, congratulations — you’ve just bought one.
