I just came across this recent statute, Cal. Gov. Code § 6218 et seq.:
(b) (1) A person … shall not publicly post … the personal information [including just the name, see below] or image of a designated health care services provider, employee, volunteer, or patient if that individual … has made a written demand of that person … 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).
(2) A designated health care services provider, employee, volunteer, or patient whose personal information or image is made public as a result of a failure to honor a demand made pursuant to paragraph (1), or any individual, entity, or organization authorized to act on their behalf, may bring an action seeking injunctive or declarative relief in any court of competent jurisdiction. If a jury or court finds that a violation has occurred, it may grant injunctive or declarative relief and shall award the successful plaintiff court costs and reasonable attorney’s fees.
(3) This subdivision [b] does not apply to a person or entity defined in Section 1070 of the Evidence Code [a publisher, editor, reporter, or other person connected with or employed upon a newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication, or by a press association or wire service, or any person who has been so connected or employed]….
Subdivision (a), referenced above, provides:
(a) (1) A person, business, or association shall not knowingly publicly post … on internet websites or social media, the personal information or image of any designated health care services provider, employee, volunteer, or patient, or other individuals residing at the same home address, with the intent to do either of the following:
(A) Incite a third person to cause imminent great bodily harm to the designated health care services provider, employee, volunteer, or patient identified in the posting or display, or to a coresident of that person, where the third person is likely to commit this harm.
(B) Threaten the designated health care services provider, employee, volunteer, or patient, identified in the posting or display, or a coresident of that person, in a manner that places the person identified or the coresident in objectively reasonable fear for their personal safety.
Subdivision (a) appears to likely be constitutional, because it’s limited to constitutionally unprotected incitement and true threats. But subdivision (b) is not so limited, and would apply even to people who name abortion providers and gender-affirming care providers (and others) without any intent to incite violence or threaten violence.
And some relevant definitions:
(a) “Designated health care services” means gender-affirming health care services or reproductive health care services.
(b) “Designated health care services provider, employee, volunteer, or patient” means a gender-affirming health care or a gender-affirming mental health care provider, employee, volunteer, or patient, or a reproductive health care services provider, employee, volunteer, or patient….
(h) “Personal information” means information that identifies, relates to, describes, or is capable of being associated with a reproductive health care services patient, provider, or assistant, including, but not limited to, their name, signature, social security number, physical characteristics or description, address, telephone number, passport number, driver’s license or state identification card number, license plate number, employment, employment history, and financial information….
(j) “Reproductive health care services” means health care services relating to the termination of a pregnancy in a reproductive health care services facility….
There’s a proposal pending right now (introduced by five state legislators, including the speaker pro tem, and four state senators) that would extend the same rules for “immigration support service providers” (lawyers and others who “provide[]” “services … to the immigrant population”).
This strikes me as pretty clearly unconstitutional: Much as I sympathize with people of any profession (or of no profession) as to whom some others have been inciting or threatening violence, the occurrence of such a threat can’t give them the power to demand that others just stop naming them online. That’s true whether the people are judges, abortion providers, police officers, ICE agents, immigration lawyers, or anyone else.
But it appears to be a new model of speech restriction that’s being tried out for various categories of people in California, and it seemed to me worth flagging.
