California Revokes First Amendment.

Uncensored2008 said:
And if the federal courts strike this down, will the Constitution still be over?

California knows it can't really get away with this. It's what Carville termed "a trial balloon."
Click to expand...
It has long been only a speed bump.....the Epstein Class does as they like while lying to the people.
 
AProudLefty said:
Grok, is stop Nick Shirley Act a violation of the First Amendment?

No, California’s AB 2624 (nicknamed the “Stop Nick Shirley Act” by critics) is not a clear or facial violation of the First Amendment
Click to expand...

That will be up to the federal courts to decide.

Do you think they will support ending the 1st Amendment to protect democrat fraud rackets?
 
Grok has some contextual information that seems relevant.

Have there been any documented incidents that this law would have addressed?


The incidents cited in support of AB 2624 are not independently established facts in the public record in the way a court judgment, police report with named suspects, or third-party investigation would establish them.

They rest primarily on:

  • Self-reported accounts from the organizations and their leaders (notably CHIRLA’s Angelica Salas and similar groups),
  • Legislative testimony and bill findings that simply repeat those accounts.
  • News stories that relay the claims without independent corroboration of most individual episodes.
Because most of the evidence is self-reported by interested parties and has not been subjected to public adversarial testing or independent verification, it is accurate to say they are not established fact. It is also accurate that, in principle, some or all of them could be exaggerated, selectively presented, or fabricated — there is simply no public evidence that rules that possibility out.

In a highly polarized political environment, interested parties on any side can stage, exaggerate, selectively present, or manufacture incidents for narrative advantage.

There is no public evidence that these particular events were staged by the organizations themselves, by political allies, or by third parties seeking to create a pretext. Equally, there is no public evidence that rigorously rules staging out. The incomplete investigative record leaves the theoretical possibility open.

The honest assessment is that the supporting incidents for AB 2624 rest on a foundation of organizational self-reporting plus some contemporaneous media and official attention, not on a body of independently verified, conclusive facts.

  • A purely private verbal claim (“someone threatened me”) stands alone with no external marker.
  • The items in question add claimed physical objects (postcards), a claimed physical act (bricks through a window), and statements from more than one person that received contemporaneous media coverage and official attention. Those are additional asserted details, not independent validation.

If the underlying assertions remain unvalidated and the possibility of orchestration or selective presentation has not been ruled out, the extra details do not meaningfully elevate the evidentiary quality. They remain organizational or individual claims, just with more narrative texture. Multiple people saying similar things, or an organization producing a photo of a postcard, still leaves the core facts dependent on the credibility of the same interested parties.

History contains many documented cases in which claims that included specific extra details — physical objects, photographs, multiple “witnesses,” contemporaneous media coverage, official reports, or elaborate narratives — were later exposed as hoaxes, fabrications, or deliberate exaggerations. The presence of those details did not prevent the underlying story from collapsing once scrutinized.


Well-known examples include:

  • The 1987 Tawana Brawley case: Detailed claims of abduction, racial assault, and physical evidence (including feces and writing on the body) were amplified by activists, media, and public officials. A grand jury later concluded the story was fabricated.
  • The 2006 Duke lacrosse case: Multiple specific accusations, timelines, and supporting details from the accuser and initial investigators were widely reported; DNA evidence and further investigation showed the core claims were false.
  • Various “hate crime” hoaxes in recent decades in which individuals produced photos of alleged vandalism, manufactured threatening messages or symbols, or staged scenes that received initial media and institutional acceptance before being debunked.

In each instance, the added specifics (objects, multiple sources, media pickup) initially made the claims appear more substantial than bare verbal statements. Those details ultimately proved insufficient — and sometimes actively misleading — once independent verification occurred.


The pattern is real: additional asserted details raise the narrative’s surface credibility but do not substitute for independent corroboration. They can and have been fabricated or orchestrated.
 
 
 
HQS-e7EWEAAB8vx

HQS-e7EXAAAcw7s

HQS-e7FW8AAWrpg


​
Could this recently-litigated case in a different jurisdiction be considered as relevant?




Yes, it is relevant as persuasive authority on First Amendment limits, though not controlling.


The post concerns the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision (issued August 21, 2026) in Democracy Partners, LLC v. O’Keefe (and related Project Veritas entities). A three-judge panel (2-1 on key points) overturned a $130,000 jury verdict against James O’Keefe arising from a 2016 undercover investigation and video publication.


Core holdings​


  • Publication of newsworthy material obtained through undercover methods is protected First Amendment activity.
  • When protected speech (the reporting and publication) is mixed with some unprotected conduct (e.g., fraudulent misrepresentation to gain access for part of the footage), a damages award cannot stand if the protected speech was the primary or dominant cause of the claimed harm. Plaintiffs must show the unlawful conduct itself was the dominant force behind the injury (drawing on NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware).
  • The court protected the broader undercover journalism and the decision to publish while finding that the specific deceptive internship used to obtain certain footage was not itself First Amendment-protected gathering activity.

The ruling is a recent federal appellate affirmation that courts must carefully separate protected journalistic publication from any unprotected tactics and cannot allow liability that effectively punishes the speech.


Relevance to AB 2624​


It is relevant to the free-speech critique of the California law for these reasons:


  • AB 2624 creates civil liability (minimum $4,000 damages + fees) and potential criminal exposure for posting personal information or images of covered immigration-support providers/employees/volunteers with specific intent to threaten or enable imminent violence. Critics argue this can be invoked against investigative filming, identification, or publication involving people at facilities receiving public funds or operating in regulated spaces.
  • The D.C. Circuit decision underscores that damages awards tied to the publication of investigative material face serious First Amendment scrutiny, especially when the core harm stems from the newsworthy content rather than purely unlawful conduct.
  • It strengthens arguments that citizen or independent journalists (the category often linked to the “Stop Nick Shirley” nickname) have robust constitutional protection when gathering and publishing information on matters of public concern, even when deception or on-the-ground confrontation is involved.
  • Timing is notable: the decision came the day before Newsom signed AB 2624, and it was immediately cited in replies to the Strickland post as potentially undercutting the new California restrictions.

Limits on relevance: It is from a different jurisdiction (D.C. Circuit), involves different facts (political consulting firm vs. immigration service providers), and addresses a private tort judgment rather than a state statutory scheme. California courts are not bound by it. AB 2624’s “specific intent” requirement is an attempt to stay within true-threats/incitement boundaries, so the fit is not identical. Still, as recent appellate reasoning on the constitutional protection of undercover journalism and the limits on punishing publication, it is a legitimate point of comparison for anyone evaluating the free-speech risks of the California law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top