SACRAMENTO\u00a0\u2014\u00a0The debate over immigration issues has reached a fever pitch nationwide, and Angelica Salas said it\u2019s putting her employees at risk. <\/p>\n
Salas, executive director of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, said her staff experiences harassment and death threats.<\/p>\n
\u201cThey ask themselves, what if someone who disagrees with our work can find where I live, will my family be safe?\u201d Salas said, addressing state lawmakers at a recent legislative hearing.\u201dPeople begin to self-censor; they step away from their work and some leave the field entirely.\u201d<\/p>\n
Salas was speaking in support of Assembly Bill 2624,<\/a> which would provide privacy protections for those facing harassment for working or volunteering with organizations that offer legal and humanitarian aid to immigrants. The bill would create an address confidentiality program, like the one already offered<\/a> to reproductive healthcare workers, and prohibit people and businesses from selling or posting images or personal information about the protected individuals on the internet. <\/p>\n The measure has drawn ire from Republicans, who argue it could have a chilling effect on free speech and the media. Assemblymember Carl DeMaio (R-San Diego) dubbed it the \u201cStop Nick Shirley Act\u201d and said it would prevent right-wing social media influencers like Shirley from conducting immigrant-related investigations in California. <\/p>\n Assemblymember Mia Bonta (D-Alameda), who authored the legislation, said the proposed law would help keep people safe \u2014 but several 1st Amendment experts this week told The Times the bill could have unintended consequences. <\/p>\n \u201cThere could be grounds for concern,\u201d said Jason Shepard, a media law and communications professor at California State Fullerton. \u201cIt reflects a legitimate and important state interest in protecting people from harassment and threats. But at the same time, this bill punishes the publication of information.\u201d<\/p>\n The legislation defines \u201cpersonal information\u201d as anything that identifies, describes or relates to the protected individuals, including their names, addresses, telephone numbers, physical descriptions, driver\u2019s licenses, financial information, license plate numbers and places of employment. <\/p>\n Shepard said the potential new law could be applied unevenly, and the language could have a chilling effect on investigative journalism.<\/p>\n Given the polarized political environment, Shepard said the legislation also could prompt other groups to request similar protections, as those working in a range of professions are facing increasingly heated rhetoric or attacks. <\/p>\n \u201cThis is not unique to people who are working in immigration support services; this really could apply to anybody engaged in public debate today,\u201d he said. <\/p>\n Carolyn Iodice, the policy director for the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, known as FIRE, said the organization has noted an uptick in laws nationwide implementing privacy protections for those in certain professions. <\/p>\n She pointed to a statute enacted a few years ago in New Jersey that protects the addresses of judges, prosecutors and police officers. The law was used in 2023 to block an editor with New Brunswick Today from publishing an article<\/a> about the police chief living two hours outside of the city. <\/p>\n \u201cIt was obviously newsworthy, but this officer was able to wield the law against this journalist, and that is the kind of thing we are worried about,\u201d Iodice said. \u201cWhen you think about handing what could be a huge number of people the ability to just block anything from being posted about them online \u2014 it could easily be abused.\u201d<\/p>\n David Loy, the legal director for the nonpartisan First Amendment Coalition, said the measure would censor the free speech of all citizens, not just those who defamed or threatened immigrant aid workers. <\/p>\n \u201cSomeone might have a legitimate dispute with them and wants to refer to it online,\u201d he said. \u201cBut they could then basically silence [that person] from referring to them on a Yelp review or Facebook posts that has nothing to do with threatening them \u2014 and that is going way beyond the narrow exceptions of the 1st Amendment.\u201d <\/p>\n Loy said the coalition reached out to Bonta\u2019s office and hopes to help tweak the bill.<\/p>\n Meanwhile, the legislation continues to face scrutiny from Republicans.<\/p>\n \u201cWe exposed CA Democrats for the \u2018Stop Nick Shirley\u2019 Act that silences citizen journalists who expose their fraud and corruption,\u201d DiMaio wrote this week on social media<\/a>.<\/p>\n