Assemblymember Mia Bonta (D-Oakland) is pushing back against criticism of her bill, Assembly (AB) 2624, releasing a video statement on X defending the legislation and accusing critics of spreading misinformation.
In the video, Bonta said “right-wing agitators” — including Elon Musk — are misrepresenting the bill. She explained that AB 2624 would expand California’s Safe at Home program to include immigrant service providers, allowing them to shield personal information like home addresses from public disclosure if they face threats, harassment, or doxing.
“This bill does not infringe on the First Amendment,” Bonta said, adding that it targets harmful behavior such as sharing personal information “with the intent to incite imminent… bodily harm or place someone in fear for their safety.”
The Safe at Home program already protects victims of domestic violence and certain health care providers. Bonta argues her bill simply extends those protections to workers serving immigrant communities, who she says increasingly face targeted harassment.
However, critics — particularly conservatives — say the bill goes much further.
Assemblymember Carl DeMaio (R-San Diego) has emerged as one of the most vocal opponents. Speaking during a recent Assembly committee hearing, DeMaio warned that AB 2624 could restrict investigative reporting and punish watchdogs who document potential wrongdoing.
“AB 2624 can only be described as the ‘Stop Nick Shirley Act’ — a bill designed to silence citizen journalists exposing fraud and abuse of taxpayer dollars,” DeMaio said, arguing that the measure could allow organizations to demand the removal of publicly recorded video and impose financial penalties.
The nickname refers to independent journalist Nick Shirley, whose viral videos have highlighted alleged fraud in government-funded programs. Critics say the bill could limit similar investigations by broadening privacy protections to organizations receiving public funds.
During the hearing, DeMaio also questioned whether the bill creates a “double standard” by extending protections to certain groups while not applying the same rules to law enforcement. Bonta responded that the legislation is narrowly focused on preventing threats and harassment, not restricting legitimate journalism.
As AB 2624 advances through the Legislature, the debate reflects a broader tension between privacy protections and press freedom. Supporters frame the bill as a necessary safeguard for vulnerable workers, while opponents warn it could chill transparency and investigative reporting.
On April 15, the Assembly Judiciary Committee voted 9-3 to advance AB 2624. It has now moved to the Assembly Public Safety Committee for consideration.