The ‘Stop Nick Shirley Act’: Yet Another Anti-Doxxing Law That Chills Free Speech

Conservative YouTuber Nick Shirley has taken his anti-fraud crusade to California, but a recently passed law, coined by conservatives as the “Stop Nick Shirley Act,” is threatening to derail him, or so he says. Now Shirley is challenging it in federal court. 

Shirley outlined his argument in a recent YouTube video, claiming that the legislation is a blatant violation of the First Amendment created in response to him exposing fraud across California. In his suit, he also alleges that it discriminates based on the content and viewpoint of speech and is unconstitutionally “overbroad and vague.”  

Assembly Bill 2624, authored by state Assemblymember Mia Bonta (D–Oakland), wife of Attorney General Rob Bonta—a fact that Shirley is keen to point out—allows for immigration support services providers, employees, and volunteers who are “fearful for their safety or the safety of their family because of their affiliation with a designated immigration support services facility” to join California’s Safe at Home Program. This program provides participants with a substitute mailing address that they can use for government records, keeping their school, work, and residential addresses confidential.

The legislation also prohibits online disclosures of personal information or images “with the specific intent” to either “incite a third person to cause imminent great bodily harm” or threaten an immigration support worker protected by the law or “a coresident of that person.” Violators can face fines of at least $4,000, court orders restricting publication, and payment of plaintiffs’ court costs and attorney’s fees. A separate provision also criminalizes posts with the specific intent that another person imminently use it to commit a likely act or threat of violence.

The law, which will go into effect on October 1, 2027, was signed by Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom last month. The California Legislature claims it’s a necessary measure to protect the immigrant community from increasing incidents of doxxing and harassment caused by the Trump administration’s anti-immigration agenda. However, some free speech groups are raising concerns about its constitutionality.

In April, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) warned that the legislation could limit “what regular people are allowed to post online about immigrants and the people who help them.” Specifically, under section 6218.19, which FIRE called “the most concerning part of the bill,” immigration service providers could “ban nearly anyone from posting their personal information on the internet.” As FIRE pointed out, “personal information” under the bill could include “anything that ‘relates to’ them.” 

Posts can be banned regardless of whether or not they are protected by the First Amendment—they don’t have to incite threats or harassment, or have anything to do with immigration. “That means the provision could facilitate censorship of all kinds of speech the Constitution protects,” FIRE said.

The legislation was amended before passage, with much of 6218.19 narrowed to prohibit posting a person’s information only with the specific intent to threaten or incite violence against them. However, the group warned the new version “could still chill lawful, constitutionally protected speech about immigrants and immigration service providers.”

“The law could also be abused in practice through frivolous demands to take down speech that doesn’t actually meet the bar for incitement or threats,” FIRE added.

A.B. 2624 is not the first seemingly well-intentioned law to raise First Amendment concerns. In 2025, California extended similar provisions for reproductive healthcare providers to gender-affirming healthcare providers and patients. 

In 2020, New Jersey enacted Daniel’s Law, which prohibits the disclosure of the home addresses and private telephone numbers of judges, prosecutors, and law enforcement officers. This law has chilled free speech, including the time it barred journalist Charlie Kratovil from publishing the address of a police chief, which he got through a public records request. Kratovil’s only intent was to document that the captain lived two hours outside of the city he served. A New Jersey appellate court ruled that while the chief’s residency in Cape May was a matter of public concern, his “exact street address is not a matter of public concern” and that protecting public officials from harassment is “a compelling State interest of the highest order.” The state Supreme Court later ruled that the address was a matter of public concern, but upheld the constitutionality of Daniel’s Law.

Meanwhile, in January, Illinois’ Public Official Safety and Privacy Act went into effect, which enacted similar provisions to Daniel’s Law for current and former General Assembly members, constitutional officers, state attorneys, public defenders, and county clerks. “While I don’t think the intent of lawmakers here is to suppress news or criticism, the fact is, the law is extremely amenable to abuse for those purposes,” Carolyn Iodice, legislative and policy director of FIRE told the Chicago Tribune.

Shirley’s commentary and style are certainly not for everyone, but the YouTuber might have a point: California’s laws seem to suppress free speech. This isn’t a California-only problem, and it should raise concerns for all Americans who care about government overreach.