The Democrat's answer to fraud: Make discovering it illegal!

[Matt Dillon]

Thanks for arguing that every Republican that says ICE agents shouldn't be doxxed and their home addresses should be protected should be removed from office. Can we start with Donald Trump?

Maybe you should sit this one out since it only proves you are in a cult since you don't know what you are arguing about.

STFU retard, doxxing federal agents is not the same as stifling 1st Amendment rights of an investigative reporter, you absolute fucktard.
It's literally the 1st thing in our Constitution, you fucking drooling moron. Seriously. Do better.
"Freedom of the press" means what to you? Lemme tell you something, if I could kick you square dead in your retarded ass right now? I would.
This is beyond the pale fucktardedness you are exhibiting.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

See the video above. Several California legislators spell it out clearly. YOU ARE FUCKING TOTALLY WRONG ON THIS BILL!

I quoted the fucking bill. I have multiple times posted links to the bill. Are you so far in the cult that you are unable to read?
It doesn't matter what others say about the bill. It ONLY matters what words are actually there in the bill since that is what the law would actually be. The law would not be based your delusions. The law would not be based on the delusions of those you are relying upon.

The video is bullshit. It starts out by lying about the bill and then continues to lie about the bill. Show where in the bill it prevents filming of anything. You can't because it does nothing like that in the bill.

 

[Matt Dillon]

I quoted the fucking bill. I have multiple times posted links to the bill. Are you so far in the cult that you are unable to read?
It doesn't matter what others say about the bill. It ONLY matters what words are actually there in the bill since that is what the law would actually be. The law would not be based your delusions. The law would not be based on the delusions of those you are relying upon.

The video is bullshit. It starts out by lying about the bill and then continues to lie about the bill. Show where in the bill it prevents filming of anything. You can't because it does nothing like that in the bill.

What matters is The Constitution, and not traitorous bills, traitor.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

I quoted the fucking bill. I have multiple times posted links to the bill. Are you so far in the cult that you are unable to read?
It doesn't matter what others say about the bill. It ONLY matters what words are actually there in the bill since that is what the law would actually be. The law would not be based your delusions. The law would not be based on the delusions of those you are relying upon.

The video is bullshit. It starts out by lying about the bill and then continues to lie about the bill. Show where in the bill it prevents filming of anything. You can't because it does nothing like that in the bill.

And I quoted California legislators, some of whom are lawyers, as to why it does what I claim and why you are full of shit.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

See the video above. Several California legislators spell it out clearly. YOU ARE FUCKING TOTALLY WRONG ON THIS BILL!

The video is bullshit. It misrepresents what is in the bill and outright lies.

For instance at the 4 minute mark they start to talk about this section.

(b) (1) A person, business, or association shall not publicly post or publicly display, disclose, or distribute, on internet websites or social media, the personal information or image of a designated immigration support services provider, employee, volunteer, or client if that individual, or any individual, entity, or organization authorized to act on their behalf, has made a written demand of that person, business, or association to not disclose the personal information or image. A written demand made under this paragraph shall include a statement declaring that the individual is subject to the protection of this section and describing a reasonable fear for the safety of that individual or of any person residing at the individual’s home address, based on a violation of subdivision (a). A demand made under this paragraph shall be effective for four years, regardless of whether or not the individual’s affiliation with a designated immigration support services facility has expired prior to the end of the four-year period.

They misrepresent what it actually says. It doesn't say "investigation is harassment." It says they can't display the personal information or image of someone if they have made a written demand to prevent it and they are subject to the protection of the law.

The video then goes on to discuss the definition of harassment. This time they outright lie about what is in the law. The only instances where "harassment" is used in the law is in how someone can apply for protection. If someone is being harassed as defined under the law they can submit an application. They can't sue for the harassment under this law. They can only sue if the law is broken AFTER they have applied. They can only sue if their image or personal information was posted to the internet with the intent to incite violence or after a written statement saying they were not to post that to the internet.

It is you that is "FUCKING TOTALLY WRONG ON THIS BILL!" You can't seem to read or understand what a 6th grader should be able to do.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

The video is bullshit. It misrepresents what is in the bill and outright lies.

For instance at the 4 minute mark they start to talk about this section.

(b) (1) A person, business, or association shall not publicly post or publicly display, disclose, or distribute, on internet websites or social media, the personal information or image of a designated immigration support services provider, employee, volunteer, or client if that individual, or any individual, entity, or organization authorized to act on their behalf, has made a written demand of that person, business, or association to not disclose the personal information or image. A written demand made under this paragraph shall include a statement declaring that the individual is subject to the protection of this section and describing a reasonable fear for the safety of that individual or of any person residing at the individual’s home address, based on a violation of subdivision (a). A demand made under this paragraph shall be effective for four years, regardless of whether or not the individual’s affiliation with a designated immigration support services facility has expired prior to the end of the four-year period.

They misrepresent what it actually says. It doesn't say "investigation is harassment." It says they can't display the personal information or image of someone if they have made a written demand to prevent it and they are subject to the protection of the law.

The video then goes on to discuss the definition of harassment. This time they outright lie about what is in the law. The only instances where "harassment" is used in the law is in how someone can apply for protection. If someone is being harassed as defined under the law they can submit an application. They can't sue for the harassment under this law. They can only sue if the law is broken AFTER they have applied. They can only sue if their image or personal information was posted to the internet with the intent to incite violence or after a written statement saying they were not to post that to the internet.

It is you that is "FUCKING TOTALLY WRONG ON THIS BILL!" You can't seem to read or understand what a 6th grader should be able to do.

The video has California law makers and representatives describing it. I'd say they have considerably more juice than you do as to how the bill will work if passed.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

The video has California law makers and representatives describing it. I'd say they have considerably more juice than you do as to how the bill will work if passed.

The bill has two GOP lawmakers lying about what is in the bill. Lawmakers often have no clue about the legislation they vote on. The words of the bill are what matters in a court of law. Not some video by Nick Shirley where he makes specious claims and edits it to tell lies.

Are you still unable to read the bill? Why won't you discuss the actual words in the bill? Are you so deep in you cult you have lost the ability to read or understand English?

 

[archives]

Yep, that's what Democrats in California want to do, leading the charge against investigative journalists like Nick Shirley. Pass laws that make what he does illegal...

California addresses fraud with the 'Stop Nick Shirley Act'

California lawmakers are advancing the "Stop Nick Shirley Act," following increased scrutiny about rampant fraud in the state

www.deseret.com

Newsom-Backed Bill Sparks Alarm Over Potential Crackdown on Fraud Investigations

Critics warn California proposal could criminalize investigative reporting Elon Musk and watchdogs raise free speech concerns as debate intensifies.

bigleaguepolitics.substack.com

California tries to criminalize journalism — to protect fraud

A bill moving through the California Legislature would give taxpayer-funded organizations the power to demand the removal of videos recorded in public spaces.

nypost.com

California Democrats Advance "Stop Nick Shirley Act" to Shield Immigrant Fraudsters from Public Scrutiny

SACRAMENTO, Calif. - In a brazen 11-2 vote on April 13, 2026, the California Assembly Judiciary Committee advanced AB 2624, a bill that critics are rightly calling the "Stop Nick Shirley Act." Authored by Assemblymember Mia Bonta, this legislation masquerades as "privacy protections" for...

www.smobserved.com

That's the ticket for Democrats! Make free speech illegal, jail the reporters, and ignore the fraud because for them fraud of the sort being uncovered is good and results in lots and lots of campaign donations. Can't have that money pipeline cut off by responsible use of tax dollars and rooting out fraud!

And this is the same poster ^ who just recently dismissed another poster’s thread because it was as its source a left leaning tabloid

It’s the old, don’t do as I do, do as I say

 

[T. A. Gardner]

And this is the same poster ^ who just recently dismissed another poster’s thread because it was as its source a left leaning tabloid

It’s the old, don’t do as I do, do as I say

The operative word is "tabloid." A site / newspaper known to print questionable stuff. As I NOTED in that other post, the article failed to provide any links or names of sources. I didn't just dismiss the site out-of-hand. I pointed out a problem with the article and on a site such as that one, the questionable nature of the article itself. Find some other articles that back it up independently, and you might have something.

 

[AProudLefty]

The video has California law makers and representatives describing it. I'd say they have considerably more juice than you do as to how the bill will work if passed.

Read. Don't listen.

 

[Damocles]

Yep, that's what Democrats in California want to do, leading the charge against investigative journalists like Nick Shirley. Pass laws that make what he does illegal...

California addresses fraud with the 'Stop Nick Shirley Act'

California lawmakers are advancing the "Stop Nick Shirley Act," following increased scrutiny about rampant fraud in the state

www.deseret.com

Newsom-Backed Bill Sparks Alarm Over Potential Crackdown on Fraud Investigations

Critics warn California proposal could criminalize investigative reporting Elon Musk and watchdogs raise free speech concerns as debate intensifies.

bigleaguepolitics.substack.com

California tries to criminalize journalism — to protect fraud

A bill moving through the California Legislature would give taxpayer-funded organizations the power to demand the removal of videos recorded in public spaces.

nypost.com

California Democrats Advance "Stop Nick Shirley Act" to Shield Immigrant Fraudsters from Public Scrutiny

SACRAMENTO, Calif. - In a brazen 11-2 vote on April 13, 2026, the California Assembly Judiciary Committee advanced AB 2624, a bill that critics are rightly calling the "Stop Nick Shirley Act." Authored by Assemblymember Mia Bonta, this legislation masquerades as "privacy protections" for...

www.smobserved.com

That's the ticket for Democrats! Make free speech illegal, jail the reporters, and ignore the fraud because for them fraud of the sort being uncovered is good and results in lots and lots of campaign donations. Can't have that money pipeline cut off by responsible use of tax dollars and rooting out fraud!

They've done it with voting, why do you think that this would be different?

 

[AProudLefty]

They've done it with voting, why do you think that this would be different?

The bill does not forbid investigative journalism. The OP as usual is talking out of his ass.

 

[archives]

The operative word is "tabloid." A site / newspaper known to print questionable stuff. As I NOTED in that other post, the article failed to provide any links or names of sources. I didn't just dismiss the site out-of-hand. I pointed out a problem with the article and on a site such as that one, the questionable nature of the article itself. Find some other articles that back it up independently, and you might have something.

The NYP, which you included above, is a tabloid, and nearly everything in it other than the sports pages is questionable and “often without sources.” In fact, the NYP is often the source for other Murdoch entries including Fox

 

[T. A. Gardner]

The NYP, which you included above, is a tabloid, and nearly everything in it other than the sports pages is questionable and “often without sources.” In fact, the NYP is often the source for other Murdoch entries including Fox

tu quoque fallacy on your part.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

The bill does not forbid investigative journalism. The OP as usual is talking out of his ass.

No, it doesn't. It makes it a felony to report on "immigrants" and does so in a way that virtually anyone could complain to the state about an investigative journalist showing up at their public place of business and doing so much as to simply photograph the location. It is so vague in its terminology that it would have a chilling effect on any sort of investigative journalism like Shirley and others do as to quash their free speech rights.

 

[archives]

tu quoque fallacy on your part.

Anything but, you dismissed the first source as a leftist tabloid and then return with the tabloid NYP, an obscure website, recognized propaganda site, and one actual paper that leans right. And to make it even comical they are all centered on Shirley, the new O’Keefe, who is of questionable honesty

No fallacy, if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, common sense dictates it ain’t an elephant

 

[AProudLefty]

No, it doesn't. It makes it a felony to report on "immigrants" and does so in a way that virtually anyone could complain to the state about an investigative journalist showing up at their public place of business and doing so much as to simply photograph the location. It is so vague in its terminology that it would have a chilling effect on any sort of investigative journalism like Shirley and others do as to quash their free speech rights.

Sharing information (doxxing) on social media that invite harassment and threats is a no no.

 

[archives]

They've done it with voting, why do you think that this would be different?

Prove it

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Sharing information (doxxing) on social media that invite harassment and threats is a no no.

The owner(s) of this site should be able to see each user's IP address. Using that they can determine their location. It doesn't equate to knowing anything about their actual address and information just where they are linking to the internet from.

 

[QP!]

And I quoted California legislators, some of whom are lawyers, as to why it does what I claim and why you are full of shit.

so politicians words over reading legal tex. Got it. Remember that the next time someone cites politicians words to you and you think the politician is wrong or lying, that your default position is to accept what they say.

As i suspect you will be crying 'appeal to authority fallacy' the minute the politician is cited as correct over the actual words simply because they are a politicians and some are lawyers too.