Secret recordings cause all kinds of problems for all kinds of people.

President Richard Nixon was caught by his own Oval Office taping system, which he installed to make secret recordings of people who might later deny saying what they said. Congress found out about the tapes during hearings investigating the cover-up of the Watergate break-in.

Guerilla journalist James O’Keefe brought down the nonprofit community organizing group ACORN with secretly recorded videos that seemed to show ACORN workers going along with plans to smuggle young women into the U.S. to work as prostitutes. O’Keefe later paid a $100,000 settlement to one of the employees who actually had called police to report the apparent human trafficking plot as soon as O’Keefe left the office.

In 2015, the anti-abortion Center for Medical Progress made secret recordings of Planned Parenthood employees callously discussing the sale of fetal tissue for research. The edited videos sparked a nationwide furor and a sharp increase in the incidence of threats and violence against Planned Parenthood clinics.

Planned Parenthood responded by sponsoring a bill in the California Legislature to step up the penalties for covert recording and to make it a crime to distribute those secret recordings on the internet.

California’s current law on eavesdropping pre-dates the internet. It bans the secret recording of a confidential communication “by means of a telegraph, telephone, or other device,” but it makes no mention of Twitter, Facebook or the Drudge Report.

The bill, AB1671, would close that “loophole,” according to Assemblyman Jimmy Gomez, D-Los Angeles, who introduced it.

But the bill has faced fierce opposition from newspaper publishers, broadcasters, motion picture producers and others who think it’s both dangerous and unconstitutional to criminalize the distribution of speech. Amendments to the bill have narrowed it to cover only confidential communications with health care providers, but opponents still think AB1671 would allow the criminal prosecution of individuals and companies engaging in protected First Amendment activities.

This debate is especially important because it’s now possible for anyone with a cell phone to do the kind of broadcasting that once required a TV station with a broadcast license and buildings full of costly equipment. Using a cell phone’s camera with an app like Periscope, anyone can stream live video worldwide on the Internet for the cost of cell phone service.

That means there are hundreds of millions of potential investigative journalists in the United States. On any given day, someone might secretly record a conversation or event with public significance. Do we want California to prosecute news organizations that publish important revelations? Do we want the law to intimidate people from sharing a video on Facebook?

This bill would impose fines of $2,500 per violation or imprisonment for up to a year, or both. Fines would increase to $10,000 for repeat violators.

Kathy Kneer, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, said the bill is a call to action.

“We must pass AB1671 to prevent future harassment of abortion providers and send a clear message to the rest of the nation that threats and violence will not be tolerated and will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law,” she said.

But this bill doesn’t increase the penalties on people guilty of threats or violence. It goes after the distributors of information.

That’s a fatal mistake. As President Nixon found out, the cover-up is what gets you.

Susan Shelley is a columnist for the Southern California News Group. Reach her at Susan@SusanShelley.com and follow her on Twitter: @Susan_Shelley.