OutKick host Riley Gaines and independent journalist Nick Shirley agreed on Friday that the “No Kings” protesters are oddly silent when it comes to a bill they say would punish citizen journalists.
California Democrats are being ripped over a bill that one state assembly member has dubbed the “Stop Nick Shirley Act,” which he argues would “criminalize” investigative journalism.
The controversial AB 2624 bill, officially titled “Privacy for immigration support services providers,” creates privacy protections for immigration support service providers, employees and volunteers, including hiding their addresses and imposing penalties on those who publish their image on social media. Democratic lawmakers say the legislation is needed to protect people from targeted political violence.
However, critics, including Republican Assemblymember Carl DeMaio, argue the bill would actually work to “silence citizen journalists and shield taxpayer-funded organizations from public scrutiny.”
NICK SHIRLEY RESPONDS TO CNN ‘HIT PIECE’ ON HIS MINNESOTA FRAUD INVESTIGATION
Shirley, who became a national figure after making videos about fraud in Minnesota and California as he investigated various businesses, blasted the bill during his Friday appearance on Gaines’ show.
“Instead of going after the fraudsters, California is going after the people exposing the fraud,” Gaines said as she marveled at the situation, asking Shirley to explain the bill.
“And what this will do is it will make it criminal to search and investigate fraud, specifically an immigrant service provider’s,” and specifically those being funded by taxpayer dollars, he said. “If you were to go and make a video out front saying how much money this location got, and they said that your visit was unwelcoming, they could then charge you for harassment, and you could then be charged $4,000 for a civil fine or $10,000 for a criminal fine, and $50,000 for a felony.”
Gaines specifically noted that the idea that content would be taken offline for alleging fraud is a violation of the First Amendment.
“They’re literally saying you cannot film in public space,” Shirley said, noting that they can then give a journalist a piece of paper saying they do not have permission to film and they “would then be able to force your content to be taken down unless you want to receive a $4,000 fine.”
“Feels very authoritarian, which, we see in the news cycle all the time, these ‘No Kings Day’ protesters, where are they when it comes to a bill like this?” she asked. “Do you find hypocrisy in the general public’s response, especially those who are on the very radical fringe side of things? Do you notice the hypocrisy there?”
“Oh, 100%,” Shirley agreed. “And what I’m doing is not like a right or left issue. I’m exposing fraud that’s taking place, and now they’re trying to censor me for exposing fraud. And they’re trying to not just censor me. The bill says ‘people.’ It doesn’t say ‘journalist.’”
“So, where are the people? Why aren’t there other people saying anything?” he asked. “Where’s all the protesters that are yelling ‘fascist’ this, ‘fascist’ that, when they are actually trying to suppress our speech by trying to pass a bill that it’s a direct attack on our First Amendment?”
CLICK HERE FOR MORE COVERAGE OF MEDIA AND CULTURE
A local California station, KCRA, published a fact-check that said California wasn’t trying to criminalize investigative journalism, saying it was about “organizations that provide services to immigrants and protecting them from harassment.”
It went on to report Democratic California Assemblymember Mia Bonta wrote the bill to “primarily allow people who work or volunteer at immigration support service organizations to be added to the Secretary of State’s ‘Safe at Home’ program.”
“The program is designed to protect individuals who fear for their safety,” KCRA reported. “Supporters have said this is needed in response to the Trump administration’s anti-immigration policies that they say have put workers who provide the services at risk. Under the proposal, immigrant support service providers who have certified, documented threats of harassment or threats would have their personal information shielded.”
Fox News’ Elaine Mallon and Peter Pinedo contributed to this report.
