There are two very interesting stories playing out right now. In the U.K., leftists are pushing for "Arday's Law" to stop media outlets from reporting on DEI frauds like former Cambridge University Professor Jason Arday, who resigned from his post at the beginning of August and was found dead in his London home last week.
Arday made outlandish claims, including that his autism diagnosis meant he was nonverbal until he was 11 years old. He also claimed to learn to read and write at 18, and that he ran 30 marathons for charity in 35 days. Instead of vetting his record — and elementary school classmates easily debunked his nonverbal claims — authorities at Cambridge made Arday a sociology professor and bragged about how he was the youngest black man to hold that position in the history of the university.
After his death, they refused to look in the mirror and evaluate their own role in Arday's inevitable downfall. Instead, they blame the media for asking questions and exposing the story.
Zack Polanski, leader of the U.K.'s Green Party, also wants to register and regulate the media. Why? He's dissatisfied that they aren't parroting his party's line on climate change. Failure to do so, Polanski claims, is "misinformation" that requires government intervention.
Many Americans would point out that the U.K. does not have a First Amendment like we enjoy here in the states. They're correct, of course, but the First Amendment doesn't stop the American Left from trying to attack any and all media that doesn't toe their preferred narrative lines.
When David Daleiden exposed Planned Parenthood's practice of harvesting and selling organs and body parts of aborted babies, Kamala Harris — then California Attorney General — for his flagrant act of journalism.
Now the state of California has passed California Assembly Bill 2624 (AB 2624), officially titled “Privacy for immigration support services providers.” That's an Orwellian name that hides what the bill actually does: it criminalizes independent journalism.
🚨 HOLY CRAP. The California Democrat Legislature has formally PASSED the Stop NICK SHIRLEY Act — sending it to Gov. Gavin Newsom for signature
— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) August 20, 2026
The bill will CRIMINALIZE Shirley going around and confronting fraudsters while recording them, then posting it online, especially… pic.twitter.com/ACMw8G1PJn
On X, it's known as the "Stop Nick Shirley Act," which isn't exactly accurate. Jennifer Van Laar pointed out the legislation pre-dated Shirley's reporting on welfare fraud in the state.
And the bill was introduced on Feb 20, before Nick had done much of anything in the state, sponsored by CHIRLA, aimed at protecting immigration support services like themselves. So to say it was aimed at Nick and not people like us and Laura Powell and others is just asinine.…
— Jennifer Van Laar (@jenvanlaar) July 1, 2026
Van Laar has been instrumental in exposing Gov. Gavin Newsom, including his tax returns and other things, and she ended up leaving California over concerns of her safety.
When I left CA almost a year ago due to threats to my safety (after exposing CHIRLA, VC Defensa, 805 Undocufund's role in anti-ICE violence), some questioned the need for me to leave the state.
— Jennifer Van Laar (@jenvanlaar) July 7, 2026
At the time, I told people, "Gavin Newsom's court system will not protect me if I… https://t.co/xKE7IOVg6n
"At the time, I told people, 'Gavin Newsom's court system will not protect me if I need to defend myself, AND, they might actively seek to imprison me for some BS 'crime.' Some friends and family scoffed at that. This video (in addition to the "Stop Nick Shirley Act") shows my concerns were well-founded," she wrote on X back in July (after Newsom said he'd jail anyone who tried to expose California election fraud).
So much for the "free state of California," huh?
I understand that mainstream media outlets, the dutiful stenographers and propagandists for the DNC that they are, do not care about this. In fact, they applaud it. They don't consider anyone who isn't one of them a real journalist, anyway. But they should be wary about who could wield this power against them.
After years of telling us President Trump is a fascist, do they really want him to have the power to jail and fine journalists who write stories he doesn't like? Heck, every time President Trump says something mean, the media clutch their pearls like it's an unprecedented attack on the free press. Just the other day, Trump slammed a CNN reporter over an inappropriate question and CNN issued a breathless statement in her defense, then went on to smear Trump aide Natalie Harp, implying her relationship with the President — her boss — is somehow inappropriate and sexual.
Many have pointed out AB 2624 is unconstitutional and that the courts will eventually throw it out. Yes, but that's not the point. The process is the punishment, and until the inevitable lawsuits work their way up to the Supreme Court, many independent journalists risk their freedom and livelihoods if they do their jobs.
How many times have mainstream journalists lectured us that their job is to "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable?" Now, instead, the motto seems to be "protect the fraudsters, and punish the people who expose the fraud."
Whether on the British side of the pond or this one, the message is clear: leftists do not like media they cannot control, and they will do whatever it takes to silence us.
