- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
California just voted to pass the “Stop Nick Shirley” Act…
Posted on 5/27/26 at 8:16 am
Posted on 5/27/26 at 8:16 am
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here. California just voted to pass AB 2624 aka “The Stop Nick Shirley Act”:
This bill puts journalists at civil risk for investigating fraud and makes it harder to expose fraud in “immigration support services,” including NGOs, nonprofits and health care facilities that receive hundreds of millions from the state of California each year.
This bill would have made it criminal to expose fake hospices in LA or the Somali “learing center” in Minnesota if they then claim “reasonable fear” and the business owner gives a written demand not to post the video.
Plain and simple, California is trying to make it harder to expose fraud and scare individuals from investigating fraud in their communities, as they could be sued for an injunction to remove the video + forced to pay their attorney fees + minimum $4,000 in damages.
The Attorney General's wife, Mia Bonta, created this bill and is now trying to make it law. How is this not a conflict of interest?
California is full of FRAUDSTERS!
17
Posted on 5/27/26 at 8:19 am to Placekicker
I don’t have any clue how that could pass constitutional review, none..
Posted on 5/27/26 at 8:21 am to Placekicker
quote:
This bill would have made it criminal to expose fake hospices in LA or the Somali “learing center” in Minnesota if they then claim “reasonable fear” and the business owner gives a written demand not to post the video.
Render it into a cartoon, problem solved.
But seriously... this can't stand.
Posted on 5/27/26 at 8:25 am to Placekicker
quote:
claim “reasonable fear” and the business owner gives a written demand not to post the video.
Sounds to me something that could easily be defeated with the first amendment.
1st Amendment guarantees five fundamental freedoms: freedom of religion, speech, the press, assembly, and petition
This post was edited on 5/27/26 at 9:12 am
Posted on 5/27/26 at 8:25 am to Placekicker
quote:
California is full of FRAUDSTERS!
How does this even pass? News Media should sue California, and take this one up the ladder.
Posted on 5/27/26 at 8:26 am to Placekicker
Posted on 5/27/26 at 8:28 am to Placekicker
There’s no way in hell this is allowed to stick. Clear violation of the first amendment.
Posted on 5/27/26 at 8:29 am to CamdenTiger
quote:
I don’t have any clue how that could pass constitutional review, none..
It’s amazing how the Left uses the law to hide their crimes.
Posted on 5/27/26 at 8:31 am to Placekicker
1) One more example of how thoroughly screwed up California has been for quite awhile now.
2) Once again, kudos to Nick Shirley. This stupid action is a testament to the good work he's been doing.
And, just think. Not a single corporate media network would hire this guy. Maybe Fake Fox, but they would put a leash on him.
2) Once again, kudos to Nick Shirley. This stupid action is a testament to the good work he's been doing.
And, just think. Not a single corporate media network would hire this guy. Maybe Fake Fox, but they would put a leash on him.
Posted on 5/27/26 at 8:32 am to Henry Jones Jr
quote:
There’s no way in hell this is allowed to stick. Clear violation of the first amendment.
Like that matters to the left. Even if it's eventually struck down, they'll just change the language a bit and pass it again.
This will happen until:
A) those bringing suit run out of money on the civilian side
B) A democrat controls the presidency again and orders the DOJ to never pursue again.
This post was edited on 5/27/26 at 8:35 am
Posted on 5/27/26 at 8:39 am to Placekicker
quote:
How is this not a conflict of interest?
It does not make it as far as conflict of interest. It takes a Kamala type beatdown because of that whole Constitution and freedom of the press thing.
Posted on 5/27/26 at 8:40 am to Placekicker
I remember a time when Democrats aimed to defend and champion journalism.
Posted on 5/27/26 at 9:16 am to Tarps99
quote:
the press
Cali’s argument will be that you have to be a credentialed member of a respected media org to get 1st Amendment rights.
It wouldn’t withstand muster but that would be their BS cover.
Posted on 5/27/26 at 9:23 am to Placekicker
Sounds like DOJ needs to descend on that state.
Posted on 5/27/26 at 9:24 am to Placekicker
Let's be clear on how this bill would work so that there's no confusion.
The bill extends California’s existing Safe at Home address confidentiality program (used for domestic violence victims, reproductive health providers, and gender-affirming care workers) to:
This would prevent the public posting or displaying personal information (name, address, image, etc.) of someone working within immigration support services facilities or that of their household members with the specific intent to incite imminent violence or create reasonable fear of violence. This exclusion, just like that of "gender-affirming care workers" is designed to do nothing but cover up various types of fraud and prevent public backlash against such abuses.
I have a feeling the expansion against immigration services engaged in facilitating keeping illegals in the country is going to cause a lawsuit which will ultimately end up getting this repealed. You can't create a law whose effective purpose is to hide law-breaking.
The bill extends California’s existing Safe at Home address confidentiality program (used for domestic violence victims, reproductive health providers, and gender-affirming care workers) to:
quote:
Employees, volunteers, and providers at immigration support services facilities (nonprofits, legal clinics, law offices, health care facilities, etc. that provide legal aid, case management, translation, counseling, or other services to immigrants)
This would prevent the public posting or displaying personal information (name, address, image, etc.) of someone working within immigration support services facilities or that of their household members with the specific intent to incite imminent violence or create reasonable fear of violence. This exclusion, just like that of "gender-affirming care workers" is designed to do nothing but cover up various types of fraud and prevent public backlash against such abuses.
I have a feeling the expansion against immigration services engaged in facilitating keeping illegals in the country is going to cause a lawsuit which will ultimately end up getting this repealed. You can't create a law whose effective purpose is to hide law-breaking.
Posted on 5/27/26 at 9:26 am to Placekicker
USSC will shoot this down in 2 seconds.
Sorry Cali, you will lose again..........................
Sorry Cali, you will lose again..........................
Posted on 5/27/26 at 9:26 am to Bard
quote:
You can't create a law whose effective purpose is to hide law-breaking.
“Watch me try.” - Gavin Newsom
Posted on 5/27/26 at 9:32 am to teke184
if this doesn't prove how corrupt democrats are
This post was edited on 5/27/26 at 9:33 am
Posted on 5/27/26 at 9:40 am to teke184
quote:
credentialed member of a respected media org
By now, what is truly a "respected media org,' nearly every one of them has trashed their reputation by siding with the Democratic party.
Posted on 5/27/26 at 9:42 am to Tarps99
I know that, you know that, and the American people know that. But Newsom et all will pretend that Newsweek or Rolling Stone has more cache than a guy on the street with a camera.
That is despite outlets like those two having less credibility than the Enquirer, which has strict fact checking to prevent lawsuits.
That is despite outlets like those two having less credibility than the Enquirer, which has strict fact checking to prevent lawsuits.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News