Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 04/13/2026 2:52:37 PM PDT by lowbridge
They don’t call it censorship anymore.
They call it protection.
Protection for communities. Protection for organizations. Protection from “threats.” The language is softer now, more strategic, designed to pass scrutiny without triggering it. But behind California’s AB 2624, the intent is harder to ignore: if you document the wrong thing, in the wrong place, involving the wrong people, the state may decide you shouldn’t be allowed to show it at all.
And this time, they’re not going after institutions.
They’re going after the individuals who don’t need one.
In Sacramento, that effort now has a bill number.
AB 2624.
According to Carl DeMaio, it also has a far more revealing name: the “Stop Nick Shirley Act.” The label may sound provocative, but it captures the underlying shift this legislation represents, a direct challenge to the rise of independent, citizen-led investigative reporting.
Because journalists like Nick Shirley don’t operate within traditional systems. They don’t rely on institutional access or editorial gatekeeping. They show up, film what’s happening in real time, and publish it directly to the public. No filters. No delays. No permission.
That model has proven effective precisely because it bypasses control.
And now, Sacramento appears ready to regulate it.
Authored by Mia Bonta, AB 2624 is being framed as a necessary measure to protect organizations that serve immigrant communities from harassment and threats. On the surface, that framing is politically difficult to oppose. But the bill’s actual language extends far beyond its stated purpose.
During a recent Assembly committee hearing, DeMaio confronted Bonta over provisions that would allow individuals affiliated with certain organizations to demand the removal of video recordings, even if those recordings were taken in public spaces.
That distinction is not minor.
It is foundational.
(Excerpt) Read more at thecurrentreport.com ...
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
100% Unconstitutional.
This from the same people who want ICE agents doxxed after threats against them & their families rose 8,000%.
One set of rules for thee, another for me. These people are despicable.
So am I...
They are so filled with corruption and sin they have no idea they look like reprobates.
Any pol that introduces this crap and all who vote in favor should have to do 10 years hard labor. The price for loser pays. Damn them for constantly making US waste our time and money fighting them. The same applies to every time they try to go against the 2nd Amd. They know its unConstitutional...FTL
This is EXACTLY what the California bill is setting itself up to do.
Benjamin Franklin's thoughts on freedom of the press, from the same linked thread:Just as Franklin suggested, today's "one citizen in 500" class of elitist "journalists" regularly engage in what Franklin called "the privilege of accusing and abusing the other 499 parts, at their pleasure." That's what Twitter was for, and that's why conservatives were deplatformed, shadow banned, and censored from responding in kind.
What's interesting in Franklin's original piece is that the "court" he is referring to is the so-called court of public opinion.The "press" is not a class of journalists as it is known today; it was the citizen journalist who had something to say. Quoting Franklin:
In whose favor and for whose emolument this court is established? In favor of about one citizen in 500, who by education, or practice in scribbling, has acquired a tolerable stile as to grammar and construction so as to bear printing; or who is possessed of a press and a few types? This 500th part of the citizens have the privilege of accusing and abusing the other 499 parts, at their pleasure; or they may hire out their pens and press to others for that purpose...It is not by any Commission from the Supreme Executive Council, who might previously judge of the abilities, integrity, knowledge, &c. of the persons to be appointed to this great trust, of deciding upon the characters and good fame of the citizens; for this court is above that council, and may accuse, judge, and condemn it, at pleasure. Nor is it hereditary, as in the court of dernier resort, in the peerage of England. But any man who can procure pen, ink, and paper, with a press, and a huge pair of BLACKING balls, may commissionate himself: And his court is immediately established in the plenary possession and exercise of its rights.
What was really prescient was Franklin's warning:
It is not by any Commission from the Supreme Executive Council, who might previously judge of the abilities, integrity, knowledge, &c. of the persons to be appointed to this great trust, of deciding upon the characters and good fame of the citizens;
Nick Shirley updated his "huge pair of BLACKING balls" with a webcam and a cell phone, but his right to do it needed no pre-authorization from a self-appointed body who decides who can report what, and who can't.
We should heed Franklin's words.
-PJ
Over nine years ago, Kamela Harris, California Attorney General (and first class moron began a malicious prosecution of David Daleiden for daring to produce independent journalism by providing video proof of Planned Parenthood selling dead baby parts.
Just last week he was finally exonerated by the courts after Harris and her minions weaponized the judicial system.
The "press" in the 1st amendment was literally the printing press. It was the right of the people to publish.
But what's worse, state lawmakers who make laws that violate constitutionally enumerated personal protections, or citizens who weren't taught their constitutional protections well enough to protect themselves from such lawmakers in court?
More specifically, the following 14th Amendment, Section 1-based federal penal law prohibits lawfare.
14th Amendment, Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States [emphasis added]; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
18U.S. Code § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law: Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom [all emphases added], willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death. —18 U.S. Code § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law
In fact, 1st Amendment-protected free speech applied to the states by the 14th Amendment actually protected defendants in California a few years back.
UC Berkeley settles landmark free speech lawsuit, will pay $70,000 to conservative group (12.4.18)
But I wouldn't be surprised if California taxpayers effectively paid the settlement, defeating the purpose of the law if so imo.
In other words, institutionally indectorinated judges may be letting taxpayers effectively pay 14A-related settlements instead of making the state actors who disrespected constitutionally enumerated protections pay it, preventing the law from doing its job to discourage state actors from abridging such protections if such is the case.
“allow individuals affiliated with certain organizations to demand the removal of video recordings, even if those recordings were taken in public spaces.”
I believe that there is a legal axiom that states you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in public places.
Liz, this is a CALIFORNIA Assembly Bill (AB 2624). Not a bill before the US Congress.
But it would be appropriate to re-write your message to tell our Reps to NOT DO something like this in our states.
“100% Unconstitutional.”
So what?
Even if it clearly so, it will take time to be found as such. Before that happens, they will try again via a a slightly different tactic so that there is overlap from one law to the next. This is exactly the same tactic used in gun control laws that are outrageously unconstitutional.
California Democrats need to be stopped by any means necessary.
Sounds fascist
Just like a couple of of communist liberals; Enact laws to destroy our freedoms but keep their misguided ideals to control the people. This is the mentality of Central and South America.
All you say is true.
My idea is just to let them know
WE know what’s going on...and that we oppose it.
Words to that effect.
Time for the Pete Seeger Carnegie Hall album song to be applied to us.
I ain’t scared of your jail
‘cause I want my freedom.
I want my freedom
I want my freedom
I ain’t scared of your jail
‘cause I want my freedom
I want my freedom now.
How about to “protect” ICE then? No more filming them at work either. Two can play this game.
The DemonKKKraats set up the Confederacy. It’s what fascists do and what they always do. Wait until they get slammed against the wall for “Russiagate.”
Thanks for the ping.
y/v/w
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.