California tried to pass a law squelching dissident speech. Again. People are finally noticing.

Governor Gavin Newsom last week signed Assembly Bill 2624, aptly dubbed the “Stop Nick Shirley Act.” The law establishes special privacy protections for qualifying “immigration-service workers” who claim threats or harassment. It also creates a formal process letting those workers demand restrictions on publication of their “personal information” and images — including names, employment, photographs, and video.

The First Amendment was written for precisely this sort of piggish government.

Shirley says this creates an obvious problem for investigative journalism. He’s right.

Suppose he investigates a taxpayer-funded hospice or nonprofit, films the people running it, and asks uncomfortable questions about where the money went. Under his reading of the law, one of those people could hand him a written demand not to publish his name or image. If Shirley publishes anyway and the subject claims fear or receives threats, Shirley says he could face legal consequences simply for reporting what he found.

That would be an outrageous law.

But the final law isn’t as broad as Shirley says it is. Not that it doesn’t deserve to be nuked. We need to be clear.

Somebody cannot simply hand him a piece of paper and prevent him from publishing a video. The enacted version requires “specific intent” to incite imminent great bodily harm or to threaten someone in a manner creating “objectively reasonable fear” for personal safety.

That distinction will matter when the courts take up the inevitable First Amendment challenge.

You know what else matters? What California Democrats originally tried to pass.

The Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, the designated “victim” in Shirley’s investigations, was not merely a supporter of A.B. 2624. California’s own legislative analysis identifies the taxpayer-funded immigration organization as one of the bill’s co-sponsors.

So an organization receiving millions of dollars in taxpayer money helped sponsor a law creating a special legal regime under which the organization may demand restrictions on the publication of their names, workplace, photographs, and video.

That should raise an eyebrow.

When the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression looked at A.B. 2624 in April, the bill was substantially worse. The original version allowed a “protected person” to send someone a written demand and bar that person for four years from publishing “personal information” or an image — without the specific-intent requirement now written into law.

RELATED: Democrats love free speech — until conservatives get some

Stefani Reynolds/Bloomberg/Getty Images

FIRE warned that the bill could suppress criticism, newsworthy reporting, photographs, and ordinary social media posts. The original even contained a special exemption for journalists covered by California’s shield law.

Why would lawmakers need a press exemption if the bill merely prohibited “threats” and “doxxing”?

Then people complained. FIRE complained. UCLA First Amendment scholar Eugene Volokh complained. Republicans like Assemblyman Carl DeMaio of San Diego complained loudly.

And Democrats retreated — a little.

The legislature added the specific-intent language, narrowed the publication restriction, and removed the journalist carve-out. FIRE now says the amendments prevent the law from being unconstitutional on its face, although the group still warns that the written-demand system could chill lawful speech.

Could?

At a raucous Capitol rally Wednesday, Shirley insisted that it absolutely will. Newsom’s office responded that critics were either “lying to create up fake conspiracy theories” or did not “know how to read.”

That is awfully cocky coming from an administration defending a law that had to be substantially rewritten to have a prayer of surviving First Amendment scrutiny.

And A.B. 2624 is hardly an aberration.

In 2024, Christopher Kohls, who posts online as “MrReagan USA,” created an obviously satirical AI-generated Kamala Harris campaign ad. Elon Musk shared it. Newsom saw it and declared that manipulating a voice in an ad “should be illegal.”

When Newsom signed A.B. 2839, he reposted Kohls’ parody and bragged: “I just signed a bill to make this illegal in the state of California.”

A federal judge almost immediately blocked the law on First Amendment grounds and later permanently enjoined its enforcement against Kohls and the other plaintiffs.

Newsom’s appalling candor was refreshing in a way. He saw political speech he disliked, announced it should be outlawed, then used the power of the state to try to make it so.

He would have gotten away with it too, if it hadn’t been for that meddling First Amendment.

RELATED: No, the founders did not ‘tell you so’

Wildpixel/Getty Images

Then there is Mirabelli v. Bonta, involving a preposterous law that allowed public schools to hide students’ “gender transitions” from their parents. California defended the law to the hilt. In March, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that the parent plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their constitutional claims.

Different subject. Same censorious reflex.

Who gets to say what? Democrats think they decide.

So never confuse retreat with innocence.

California Democrats did not begin with a carefully limited A.B. 2624 and painstakingly protect innocent victims while respecting the First Amendment. They reached much farther into protected speech and backed off only after people caught them.

If the problem was doxxing and threats, why did the original bill reach names, employment information, photographs, and video? Why did lawmakers think they needed a special exception for journalists? And why does the final law retain a formal four-year “do not publish me” demand if the only publication California may punish is a threat or incitement?

Patrick Henry had the proper American disposition toward government power: “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel.”

Especially in California.

Kohls was no accident. Neither was Mirabelli. Nor did A.B. 2624 accidentally offend the First Amendment. Scratch a “liberal,” find a censor.

Again and again, California Democrats reach for state power to control what people may say, publish, parody, disclose, or hear — then retreat only when courts, civil libertarians, or public outrage force them to.

The First Amendment was written for precisely this sort of piggish government.