LA Bans Slurs At City Meetings, Defying Free Speech Warnings

LOS ANGELES, CA — The Los Angeles City Council approved new rules Wednesday banning speakers from using a racial slur and an obscene term for a woman during council and committee meetings.

In a 14-0 vote, council members finalized a proposal introduced by Council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson earlier this year to curtail such language. Councilman Bob Blumenfield was absent during the vote.

In recent years, the City Council and its committees have been plagued by foul-mouthed gadflies. A deputy city attorney often explains that City Council members do not condone the remarks, but must adhere to the First Amendment.

Some of these speakers have attacked elected officials based on their weight, sexual orientation, gender and race.

The ban prohibits speakers from using the so-called N-word and C-word.

If speakers use either word or any variations of the words, they will receive a verbal warning. Further violations of the rules could prompt city officials to ask police officers in the room to remove them. These individuals could face a possible ban from future meetings as well.

According to the motion, the city must adhere to the First Amendment but also to the California Brown Act, which regulates open meetings for local government bodies.

"These duties come into conflict when some members of the public in their comments to council and its committees use certain offensive epithets," the motion reads. "At their worst, these members of the public refer to Black members of the public, city staff and council members using the 'N-word' and to female members of the public, city staff, and council members using the 'C- word."'

Council members contend individuals who use these offensive words are doing so with the aim of "offense and injury itself."

Council members argued they can take action, citing a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 1942, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. The landmark case established the "fighting words" doctrine, limiting the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech. It set a precedent for regulating speech that incites violence or provokes a breach of peace.

David Loy, legal director of the First Amendment Coalition, in a letter to the City Council previously warned that the new rule could lead to lawsuits. He also contended that the new rules cannot be justified on the grounds that members of the public might believe elected officials condone offensive terms said during council and committee meetings.

Loy provided several legal examples that could challenge the city's position, saying the city could use a disclaimer to reinforce its disagreement with offensive epithets.

"But the First Amendment prohibits the government from censoring speech because it disapproves of that speech," Loy wrote in the letter. "FAC respectfully urges the City Council to reject the proposed rule."

In an interview with City News Service in April, Loy said he understands the council's concerns and the impact of offensive language, adding that he does not condone the use of such epithets.

"But the problem is that the First Amendment does not allow the government to censor speech just because people don't like what it says, and that's just as true whether the speech is highly offensive or not."

He also argued against the council members' claim that they had a case to prohibit the use of two specific epithets. Loy said the so-called "fighting words doctrine" established by Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire is "very narrow, very limited."

"Free speech is the oxygen of civil society and the oxygen of democracy, and if we start setting a precedent to censure or silence speech, that road is very hard to stop going down," Loy said.

City News Service