California legislators are trying to make investigating fraud illegal

So freedom of the press or nah?

Before the inevitable "nuh uh" from board dems (the one or 2 that there are)

Here is how Grok answered "Is there wording in california AB 2624 that makes it harder for investigative journalists to expose fraud?"

quote:

---

Yes, California AB 2624 (2025–2026 session, authored by Asm. Mia Bonta) contains wording that critics argue would make it harder for investigative journalists and citizen watchdogs to expose fraud, particularly in immigration support services programs.

ad75.asmrc.org +1

The bill (which expands California's Safe at Home address-confidentiality program) adds Chapter 3.26 to the Government Code. Its key operative provisions—beyond the confidentiality application process—include prohibitions on disseminating identifying information about “designated immigration support services provider[s], employee[s], or volunteer[s]” at facilities providing legal aid, advocacy, case management, etc.

calmatters.digitaldemocracy.org

Relevant Wording from the Bill (as summarized in official legislative analyses and the bill digest)It prohibits a person, business, or association from soliciting, selling, or trading on the internet or social media the personal information or image of these protected individuals “with the intent described above” (i.e., threats, harassment, or violence tied to their work).

calmatters.digitaldemocracy.org

It also prohibits a person from posting on the internet or social media “the personal information or image” of a designated provider/employee/volunteer (or others at the same home address).

calmatters.digitaldemocracy.org

Key definitions that broaden the impact (verbatim from the bill text):“Image” includes “a photograph, video footage, sketch, or computer-generated image that provides a means to visually identify the person depicted.”

leginfo.legislature.ca.gov

“Publicly post” or “publicly display” means “to intentionally communicate or otherwise make available to the general public.”

leginfo.legislature.ca.gov

“Personal information” is broad and includes name, address, employment, etc.

The bill creates new crimes (and a state-mandated local program) and, per critics in recent Assembly hearings, includes language allowing protected individuals or organizations to demand removal of video recordings—even if filmed in public—and imposes financial penalties for non-compliance or continued publication.

lassennews.com

Why This Affects Investigative Journalism on FraudInvestigative videos (e.g., those by citizen journalists like Nick Shirley, after whom opponents have nicknamed the bill the “Stop Nick Shirley Act”) often capture identifiable images/video footage of employees, volunteers, or providers at work in taxpayer-funded or government-linked programs. Posting such footage on YouTube, X, or other platforms would qualify as “publicly post[ing]” an “image.”

ad75.asmrc.org +1

There is no explicit carve-out in the publicly available summaries or text for newsgathering, public-interest reporting, or First Amendment-protected activity when the posting exposes alleged fraud, waste, or misconduct.
The prohibitions are tied to the person’s affiliation with “designated immigration support services,” exactly the sector where recent viral investigations have documented fraud.

lassennews.com

Opponents (including Assemblymember Carl DeMaio) argue this creates a takedown mechanism + penalty threat that lets the very organizations under scrutiny force removal of evidence of “misconduct in plain view,” chilling documentation even when no “intent to harass” is present.

lassennews.com

Bottom line: The bill’s core anti-doxxing goal (protecting people facing real threats) is clear, but the specific wording on posting images/video footage and associated removal/penalty powers is broad enough that it can be used against journalists publishing verifiable footage of public or quasi-public activities. That is why it is being actively opposed as legislation that would hinder exposure of fraud in these programs. The bill is still moving through the Legislature (recently amended and advanced from committee as of April 2026). You can read the latest version on the official leginfo.legislature.ca.gov site under bill ID 202520260AB2624

---

.

I hope I see national divorce in my lifetime.

Here is the actual bill. Judge for yourself.

California Legislature

quote:

---

Screw that. Our soldiers didn’t die and bleed on foreign land just to surrender to domestic commies.

---

It’s either amicable peaceful divorce at this point, or extreme bloodshed on our soil. That’s where we are headed.

quote:

---

Screw that. Our soldiers didn’t die and bleed on foreign land just to surrender to domestic commies.

---

The right cries over memes.


We've already lost.

Using common sense and logic....but this sounds alot like something a King would do to his people living in his kingdom.

Taking a page out of Jeff Landry’s playbook.