A California bill intended to protect the privacy of people providing services to immigrants has generated national buzz, with critics arguing the proposed legislation would infringe on free speech rights.
Supporters say Assembly Bill 2624, introduced by Assemblymember Mia Bonta, a Bay Area Democrat, aims to protect employees and volunteers at immigration support services facilities from being doxxed or harassed.
The bill would allow these workers to request that their home, school or work addresses be withheld from disclosure in public records through an existing state program already offered to domestic violence survivors and workers at reproductive health care or gender-affirming care facilities who face harassment.
Related: California lawmakers are pushing various immigration-related bills this year
It would also prohibit someone from publicly posting online certain personal information, such as an address, phone number or photos and videos of these workers, if the poster had “intent to … incite a third person to cause imminent great bodily harm” or to threaten the individual such that the target has “objectively reasonable fear for their personal safety.”
Violators could face fines of up to $10,000 per violation — or more if actual injury occurs — as well as imprisonment.
Critics, meanwhile, say the legislation would impede on First Amendment rights.
Although AB 2624 wouldn’t apply to reporters covered under California’s “shield law” for journalists, some raised concerns that it would restrict citizen journalists’ work if they were not allowed to post the names and photos or videos of workers.
Some Republican state lawmakers have nicknamed the bill the “Stop Nick Shirley Act,” a reference to the conservative YouTuber who last year posted videos about alleged fraud in Somali-run child care centers in Minnesota and, in March, filmed a video in California about alleged hospice and day care center fraud.
Assemblymember Carl DeMaio, R-San Diego, described the bill as one “designed to silence citizen journalists.”
But Bonta’s office maintains the bill wasn’t written with Shirley in mind and blames “right-wing agitators” for “intentionally spreading significant misinformation.” Her office recently issued a press release called “Setting the Record Straight” to defend the bill and its intent.
Angelica Salas, executive director of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, also known as CHIRLA, said AB 2624 is necessary due to “unprecedented attacks” on immigrants and organizations at a time when the Trump administration is spewing anti-immigrant rhetoric.
She described, during an April 7 committee hearing in Sacramento, an incident where CHIRLA staff members leaving the office for lunch were confronted outside by people demanding to know their names, making it difficult for them to move. Someone has also shown up at her mother’s house to look for her, Salas said.
“When personal information is easily accessible, it creates pathways for harassment and intimidation. And we are seeing that escalation happen online and in person every day. People began to self-censor. They step away from their work. Some leave the field entirely despite how urgently they are needed,” Salas said.
On the question of whether AB 2624 would impact journalism, Bonta insists it would not.
During another committee hearing on the bill this week, Bonta maintained that AB 2624, as written, already makes clear that the legislation would not prevent journalists from doing their jobs.
“It only targets intentionally posting or distribution of personal information when tied to threats, harassment or incitement of violence,” she said.
“Constitutional free speech protections still fully apply. It does not prevent lawful reporting of matters of public concern,” Bonta added. “And the bill is narrowly focused on preventing misuse of personal information, not restricting lawful speech.”
But even if AB 2624 states it would not apply to journalists, some legal experts worry there would still be instances where the legislation would trample on First Amendment rights.
Eugene Volokh, a retired UCLA law school professor with expertise in First Amendment law and doxxing, said, based on his reading of the bill’s application, “(Section) 6218.19(a) does say that there’s got to be intent to incite or threaten, but 6218.19(b) does not limit itself to people who are intentionally inciting or threatening.”
Put more simply, said Volokh, someone — let’s call them Person A — who wishes to publicly post online, whether positive or negative, about an immigration attorney might be restricted from doing so.
If that attorney finds out that Person A has posted or is planning to post and sends Person A a letter demanding that they either not post or take down the content, and they refuse, then Person A could be sued, according to Volokh, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, a public policy think tank at Stanford University.
Michael Overing, an adjunct professor at the USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism who teaches courses on First Amendment rights and free expression, said he’s worried the bill would “chill free speech.”
In particular, Overing said he is concerned it would give hyperlocal journalists who don’t have the legal resources, or whose employers lack the legal resources that a larger news outlet has, greater pause before reporting a story.
It may not be the intention of the bill’s author to prosecute reporters, but that won’t stop others from using AB 2624 to go after journalists, said Overing, who characterized the bill as overly broad.
“She (Bonta) probably has her heart in the right place,” Overing said.
“The problem is going to be that there are clever people out there who know how to take apart a statute. This (bill) is not as carefully written or narrowly tailored as I would think it would need to be in order to pass constitutional muster,” said Overing, who self-identified as a libertarian.
Daniel McGreevy, a spokesperson for Bonta, said in an email that the lawmaker is committed to making sure the intent of her bill is clear.
“The Assemblymember introduced this bill to protect workers facing threats and harassment. The bill is not intended to impede journalism, and we’re committed to ensuring that’s clear in the language,” he said.
During the committee hearing on Tuesday, Assemblymember Tom Lackey, R-Palmdale, said he couldn’t vote for the bill because of the lack of clarity over what it would do. He suggested that Bonta refine the bill so that her stated intentions are clear.
“At this point, I’m not able to support it because … it’s very confusing, and it’s causing so much animus. Maybe we can bring calm and show that your intent is really what your intent is,” Lackey said. “But as of right now, it’s a lightning rod, and it’s causing a lot of stir.”
Assemblymember John Harabedian, D-Pasadena, meanwhile, said he was confident that anything requiring clarification would be addressed as the bill moves through the legislative process.
AB 2624 ultimately passed out of the Assembly Public Safety Committee on Tuesday by a vote of 7 to 2; both no votes came from the lone Republicans on the committee. Its next stop will be the lower chamber’s appropriations committee.