The “Stop Nick Shirley Act” is California’s newest assault on the First Amendment.

Of course, Gavin Newsom, Mia Bonta, and the Democrats describe AB 2624 as a manner to shield the “privacy” of “immigration support service providers.”

The media have largely performed alongside, describing the invoice as a manner to shield immigrants.

But that’s not what the invoice is, nor what motivated it.

Independent journalist Nick Shirley speaks during a roundtable dialogue in the State Dining Room of the White House on Wednesday, October 8, 2025, in Washington, DC. Getty Images

The invoice is an try to shield the non-profit organizations from scrutiny by journalists who are asking questions the state itself should be asking about potential fraud.

Citizen journalist Nick Shirley visited several websites in Minnesota and drew consideration to fraud dedicated by organizations within the Somali group there. 

The drawback was actual, and well-known, but Minnesota Governor Tim Walz tried to cowl it up, and accused critics of racism.

Shirley came to California to conduct more investigative journalism about mismanagement, grift, and fraud, just as The California Post has been doing.

Gavin Newsom, Mia Bonta, and the Democrats describe AB 2624 as a manner to shield the “privacy” of “immigration support service providers.” David Buchan for Ca Post

That’s when Democrats in Sacramento determined to act.

AB 2624 would “prohibit a person, business, or association from soliciting, selling, or trading on the internet the personal information or image of a designated immigration support services provider, employee, or volunteer” with the intent of “that another person imminently use that information to commit a crime involving violence or a threat of violence.”

Inciting violence is already unlawful. But AB 2624 suggests that if a journalist like Nick Shirley exposes fraud dedicated by an group serving immigrants (which, in “sanctuary state” California, contains unlawful immigrants), and someone else decides — illegally — to threaten that group, then the journalist has dedicated a crime.

Citizen journalist Nick Shirley visited several websites in Minnesota and drew consideration to fraud dedicated by organizations within the Somali group there.  AP

That is a violation of the First Amendment, and it will not stand up in courtroom. It is just pandering to the amnesty foyer.

The California Post faces the same hazard from this new legislation as citizen journalist like Nick Shirley does.

It goals to discourage reporting on non-profits — like our latest report on a non-profit CEO who is raking in thousands and thousands.

Gavin Newsom kinds himself as a defender of the First Amendment when he criticizes President Donald Trump, or Republicans who ban pornography from college libraries in other states.

But he has a monitor document of signing payments that violate free speech and are later struck down by the courts.

The most laughable instance was in 2024, when he signed a legislation banning the use of AI in political advertisements.

That legislation was meant to shield Kamala Harris from mockery. It was tossed out the second it hit a federal courtroom.

And who could neglect the prosecution of David Daleiden — later dropped — for the crime of undercover journalism exposing Planned Parenthood?

Journalists deserve safety, not intimidation. The “Stop Nick Shirley Act” is a shame.