Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Bay Area Social Media Post Claims ICE Cannot Enter Library, Fuels Misinformation

News

Bay Area Social Media Post Claims ICE Cannot Enter Library, Fuels Misinformation

South Novato Library, California

Pricila Flores

Bay Area community advocates are cautioning community members to be wary of what they see, interact with, and post on social media regarding information about the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and immigration, following a rumor that targeted the Marin County Library.

‘South Novato Library has safe rooms that cannot be accessed by border patrol or ICE without a court order,’ an Instagram story post reads, with photos of a room in the library next to the text alongside the library address. The graphic claims Immigration and Customs Enforcement would not have the right to enter the pictured room without a court-ordered warrant.

Despite the graphic becoming a popular share among the local community of Novato, a Marin County city located just north of San Francisco, the information is false.


“I am extremely concerned that people have taken the information that I shared in a specific meeting out of context and used it erroneously,” Héctor García, Bilingual Community Library Specialist, said in an email statement.

García believes whoever created the post took information he shared earlier in the year from a meeting in which he relayed information given to the library staff by the county. At the time of the meeting, the staff spaces at the South Novato Library were considered off-limits to ICE agents, he stated.

“Someone took a screenshot of this chat and shared it on their social media,” he said. “However, as we agreed in all our meetings concerning Immigrants Rights and Justice is that everything is changing at a fast speed during this administration and that we need to make sure before sharing that we are not misinforming people.”

South Novato Library’s Media Manager, Andre Clemons, said after looking at the post, a few things stood out to him.

“The quality of the image is not something we would produce, and there is no way to verify this information on who to call, but it did have our address, and it was written in a tone as if we wrote it, but that's not something that we write,” he said.

Clemons says he wishes people would call the library before reposting.

Despite the social media post’s claims, ICE agents do not need a court-ordered warrant to enter the South Novato Library. There is an ongoing investigation over the social media post, according to Clemons.

“The hope will be that we are able to protect our voice from being misused in a way that causes confusion and just creating more fear unnecessarily,” Clemons said.

The post became a popular share on social media platforms during a time of unrest and high tension across California after President Donald Trump’s order in April to go after sanctuary cities that “obstruct the enforcement of Federal immigration laws.” Tensions escalated in June when ICE began raiding parts of Los Angeles, and the city began to heavily protest all ICE activity. But it wasn’t just Los Angeles; protests erupted all throughout California in support of the immigrant community.

And for those who didn’t see it on their streets, they saw it on their screens. Social media apps like TikTok and Instagram are used to post sightings, videos of protests, and even videos of people getting detained by ICE.

However, local leaders warn that misinformation is flooding social media platforms at an increasing rate. Lisa Bennett, Executive Director of the nonprofit Multicultural Center of Marin, says misinformation is growing even beyond mainstream social media apps and manifesting in apps like ICEBlock and People over Papers. ICEBlock and People over Papers allow the public to post ICE sightings, confirmed or not.

“It’s difficult [to differentiate between fake and real content], we can’t even differentiate sometimes,” Bennett said. “There are people who do this maliciously, and so I have to look out for that.”

The Multicultural Center of Marin County hosts the Marin Rapid Response Network, a 24-hour hotline that serves immigrants by providing resources and assistance if they are faced with ICE. Bennett says they receive about 10-15 calls a day with people reporting or inquiring about ICE sightings. The network verifies in two ways: by sending trained observers or receiving a call from a community member whose family member has been detained.

Bennett says the most helpful action people can take is to call the Marin Rapid Response Network's 24-hour hotline and relay what they have heard or seen, allowing them to verify the information.

The Multicultural Center of Marin is working to create a mass alert system using its hotline. The hotline will notify the community about ICE's presence and debunk false sightings.

Above all, Clemons and Bennett advise that the community should not repost information regarding ICE without verifying it with the hotline or contacting entities directly, especially if the online content ties entities to specific information, such as the library.

Pricila Flores is a journalist in Northern California. Flores is a UC Santa Barbara alumna with a degree in Language, Culture and Society with a minor in Professional Writing under the Journalism track.

Read More

A gavel next to a computer chip with the words "AI" on it.

Often, AI policy debates focus on speculative risks rather than real-world impacts. Kevin Frazier argues that lawmakers and academics must shift their focus from sci-fi scenarios to practical challenges.

Getty Images, Just_Super

Why Academic Debates About AI Mislead Lawmakers—and the Public

Picture this: A congressional hearing on “AI policy” makes the evening news. A senator gravely asks whether artificial intelligence might one day “wake up” and take over the world. Cameras flash. Headlines declare: “Lawmakers Confront the Coming Robot Threat.” Meanwhile, outside the Beltway on main streets across the country, everyday Americans worry about whether AI tools will replace them on factory floors, in call centers, or even in classrooms. Those bread-and-butter concerns—job displacement, worker retraining, and community instability—deserve placement at the top of the agenda for policymakers. Yet legislatures too often get distracted, following academic debates that may intrigue scholars but fail to address the challenges that most directly affect people’s lives.

That misalignment is no coincidence. Academic discourse does not merely fill journals; it actively shapes the policy agenda and popular conceptions of AI. Too many scholars dwell on speculative, even trivial, hypotheticals. They debate whether large language models should be treated as co-authors on scientific papers or whether AI could ever develop consciousness. These conversations filter into the media, morph into lawmaker talking points, and eventually dominate legislative hearings. The result is a political environment where sci-fi scenarios crowd out the issues most relevant to ordinary people—like how to safeguard workers, encourage innovation, and ensure fairness in critical industries. When lawmakers turn to scholars for guidance, they often encounter lofty speculation rather than clear-eyed analysis of how AI is already reshaping specific sectors.

Keep ReadingShow less
A person looking at social media app icons on a phone
A different take on social media and democracy
Matt Cardy/Getty Images

Outrage Over Accuracy: What the Los Angeles Protests Teach About Democracy Online

In Los Angeles this summer, immigration raids sparked days of street protests and a heavy government response — including curfews and the deployment of National Guard troops. But alongside the demonstrations came another, quieter battle: the fight over truth. Old protest videos resurfaced online as if they were new, AI-generated clips blurred the line between fact and fiction, and conspiracy theories about “paid actors” flooded social media feeds.

What played out in Los Angeles was not unique. It is the same dynamic Maria Ressa warned about when she accepted the Nobel Peace Prize in 2021. She described disinformation as an “invisible atomic bomb” — a destabilizing force that, like the bomb of 1945, demands new rules and institutions to contain its damage. After Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the world created the United Nations and a framework of international treaties to prevent nuclear catastrophe. Ressa argues that democracy faces a similar moment now: just as we built global safeguards for atomic power, we must now create a digital rule of law to safeguard the information systems that shape civic life.

Keep ReadingShow less
Secretary of War Pete Hegseth's Assault on Journalism
tóng-àn:The Pentagon, cropped square.png – Wikipedia

Secretary of War Pete Hegseth's Assault on Journalism

The Trump Administration is ramping up its ongoing effort to curtail press freedom. While much attention has been paid to ABC’s cancellation of Jimmy Kimmel Live! under pressure from Trump’s media enforcer, Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendon Carr, the Pentagon has announced draconian new restrictions on the press.

Last week, as the Boston Globe noted, it said “credentialed journalists at the military headquarters” will be required to sign a pledge to refrain from reporting information that has not been authorized for release….Journalists who don’t abide by the policy risk losing credentials that provide access to the Pentagon.”

Keep ReadingShow less
What's the Difference Between Consequence Culture and State Censorship?

Jimmy Kimmel attends the 28th Annual UCLA Jonsson Cancer Center Foundation's "Taste For A Cure" event at Beverly Wilshire, A Four Seasons Hotel on May 02, 2025 in Beverly Hills, California.

(Photo by Tommaso Boddi/Getty Images for UCLA Jonsson Cancer Center Foundation)

What's the Difference Between Consequence Culture and State Censorship?

On a recent Tuesday night, viewers tuned in expecting the usual rhythm of late-night comedy: sharp jokes, a celebrity guest, and some comic relief before bed. Instead, they were met with silence. Jimmy Kimmel was yanked off the air after mocking Trump’s response to Charlie Kirk’s assassination, his remarks branded “offensive” by federal officials. Stephen Colbert fared no better. After skewering Trump’s wealth and his strongman posturing, his show was abruptly suspended. The message was unmistakable: any criticism of the president could now be grounds for cancellation.

These weren’t ratings decisions or advertiser tantrums. They were acts of political pressure. Regulators threatened fines and hinted at license reviews if the jokes continued. A hallmark of American democracy, the freedom to mock the powerful, was suddenly treated as a form of censorship.

Keep ReadingShow less