A week ago: California signed AB 2624.
Critics called it the Stop Nick Shirley Act.
Addresses of immigration-service providers removed from public records. Photos and personal data online restricted when done “for harassment or violence”.
Yesterday Shirley went to federal court.
Together with America First Legal he is suing AG Rob Bonta and Secretary of State Shirley Weber.
The law does not take effect until October 2027.
The complaint says the text is already too vague, too broad, and aimed at one kind of investigation. That chills speech before the first fine is issued.
Two frames
California: protection against doxxing.
People who assist immigrants would be targets of hate campaigns.
Shirley: less transparency over public money.
First the camera on empty facilities and subsidies. In Minnesota at least one owner from that file later pleaded guilty.
Then a law that makes checking those flows more expensive.
The bill’s author is Mia Bonta, wife of the attorney general now being sued.
That fact alone makes the timing visible. It does not prove the whole intent. It does make clear this is not an abstract privacy debate.
The pattern
First the images.
Then the label: journalism becomes stalking.
Then the rule.
Now the court.
The same tension as with the auditors.
The camera is legal until it stands at the wrong counter.
Whether Shirley is right in every case remains a separate question.
Some claims were later substantiated. Others were contested.
That nuance disappears once the law turns the investigator into the problem.
OIM way out
Do not canonise the YouTuber.
Do test the rule.
Who gets a substitute address, on what grounds, and how does the citizen still check whether tax money lands where it should?
Protection against violence is legitimate.
Protection against questions is not.
Open registers where public money is involved.
A camera in public space.
A court when the law makes the count harder.
Question for you
If an investigation leads to a law with your name on it…
what is being protected: the aid worker, or the system that would rather not be filmed?
This post is 100% authentic and verifiable via:
https://openinternetmanifest.org/nl/hash-verifier
### RVN: Stop Nick Shirley Act – now in court
A week ago: California signed AB 2624.
Critics called it the Stop Nick Shirley Act.
Addresses of immigration-service providers removed from public records. Photos and personal data online restricted when done “for harassment or violence”.
Yesterday Shirley went to federal court.
Together with America First Legal he is suing AG Rob Bonta and Secretary of State Shirley Weber.
The law does not take effect until October 2027.
The complaint says the text is already too vague, too broad, and aimed at one kind of investigation. That chills speech before the first fine is issued.
### Two frames
California: protection against doxxing.
People who assist immigrants would be targets of hate campaigns.
Shirley: less transparency over public money.
First the camera on empty facilities and subsidies. In Minnesota at least one owner from that file later pleaded guilty.
Then a law that makes checking those flows more expensive.
The bill’s author is Mia Bonta, wife of the attorney general now being sued.
That fact alone makes the timing visible. It does not prove the whole intent. It does make clear this is not an abstract privacy debate.
### The pattern
First the images.
Then the label: journalism becomes stalking.
Then the rule.
Now the court.
The same tension as with the auditors.
The camera is legal until it stands at the wrong counter.
Whether Shirley is right in every case remains a separate question.
Some claims were later substantiated. Others were contested.
That nuance disappears once the law turns the investigator into the problem.
### OIM way out
Do not canonise the YouTuber.
Do test the rule.
Who gets a substitute address, on what grounds, and how does the citizen still check whether tax money lands where it should?
Protection against violence is legitimate.
Protection against questions is not.
Open registers where public money is involved.
A camera in public space.
A court when the law makes the count harder.
**Question for you**
If an investigation leads to a law with your name on it…
what is being protected: the aid worker, or the system that would rather not be filmed?
#NickShirley #AB2624 #FirstAmendment #Fraud #RealityVsNarrative #RVN #OpenInternetManifest
https://openinternetmanifest.org
This post is 100% authentic and verifiable via:
https://openinternetmanifest.org/nl/hash-verifier
Deel dit bericht
Korte versie: Teaser voor X Raw Markdown: Exacte originele tekst (voor verifier) Unicode: Mooie opmaak voor Facebook / andere platforms
Comments
Want to comment? Log in with GitHub.
You can always read without an account.
💸 Support the Open Internet Manifest ❤️
This manifest only exists thanks to your donations.
Every satoshi or monero helps enormously (servers, domains, development).
Comments
Want to comment? Log in with GitHub.
You can always read without an account.