Sacramento – The debate over immigration issues has reached a fever pitch across the country and Angelica Salas said it’s putting her staff at risk.
Salas, executive director of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, said her staff experienced harassment and death threats.
“They ask themselves, if someone who disagrees with what we do gets to where I live, will my family be safe?” “People start to self-censor; they turn away from their work and some leave the field altogether,” Salas said, addressing state lawmakers at a recent legislative hearing.
Salas was speaking in support Assembly Bill 2624, Which would provide privacy protections for people who face harassment for working or volunteering with organizations that provide legal and humanitarian assistance to immigrants. This bill would create an address privacy program similar to the first already proposed to reproductive health workers, and to prevent people and businesses from selling or posting images or personal information about protected individuals on the Internet.
The measure has angered Republicans, who argue it could have chilling effects on free speech and the media. Assemblyman Carl DeMaio (R-San Diego) dubbed it the “Stop Nick Shirley Act” and said it would prevent right-wing social media influencers like Shirley from conducting immigration-related investigations in California.
Assemblymember Mia Bonta (D-Alameda), who wrote the legislation, said the proposed legislation would help keep people safe — but several First Amendment experts told The Times this week that the bill could have unintended consequences.
“There may be cause for concern,” said Jason Shepard, a media law and communications professor at California State Fullerton. “This reflects the State’s legitimate and important interest in protecting people from harassment and threats. But at the same time, this Bill punishes the publication of information.”
The law defines “personal information” as anything that identifies, describes, or relates to protected individuals, including their names, addresses, telephone numbers, physical descriptions, driver’s licenses, financial information, license plate numbers, and places of employment.
Sheppard said the potential new law could be enforced unevenly, and the language could have a chilling effect on investigative journalism.
Given the polarized political climate, Shepard said the law could inspire other groups to request similar protections, as those working in various professions face increasingly harsh rhetoric or attacks.
“This is not unique to people who are working in immigration support services; it can really apply to anyone involved in the public debate today,” he said.
Caroline Iodice, policy director at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, known as FIRE, said the organization has seen an uptick in laws nationwide implementing privacy protections for people in certain occupations.
He pointed to a law enacted a few years ago in New Jersey that protects the addresses of judges, prosecutors and police officers. This law was used to block an editor of New Brunswick Today in 2023 publishing an article About the police chief living two hours out of town.
“This was obviously newsworthy, but this officer was able to use the law against this journalist and that’s what we’re concerned about,” Iodice said. “When you think about handing over large numbers of people the ability to prevent anything about them from being posted online – it can be easily abused.”
David Loy, legal director of the nonpartisan First Amendment Coalition, said the measure would restrict the free speech of all citizens, not just those who defamed or threatened immigrant aid workers.
“Somebody may have a legitimate dispute with them and want to reference it online,” he said. “But then they can basically silence (that person) from mentioning them on a Yelp review or a Facebook post that has nothing to do with threatening them — and that’s going far beyond the narrow exceptions of the 1st Amendment.”
Loy said the coalition has contacted Bonta’s office and hopes he will help modify the bill.
Meanwhile, the legislation faces scrutiny from Republicans.
“We exposed CA Democrats for the ‘Stop Nick Shirley’ Act, which silences citizen journalists who expose their fraud and corruption,” DeMaio Wrote on social media this week.
Shirley released a viral video last year allegation of fraud In Somali-run immigrant daycare centers in Minneapolis. He recently shared videos of himself confronting Democrats who supported Bonta’s bill in Sacramento.
“The enemy is truly within,” Shirley wrote on Instagram. “While our politicians would like to protect fraudsters and illegal immigrants, now is the time for us to stand up or face mass incarceration of traitors.”
Bonta rejected claims that the bill aimed to deter journalists, A news release said That “right-wing agitators” and “ineffective legislators” were deliberately spreading misinformation.
Bonta spokesman Daniel McGreevy said the bill is directly aimed at protecting immigrant service providers. He said the office is working on refining the law to address concerns and welcomes good-faith dialogue.
The bill is progressing through the state legislature and was recently referred to the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
