Members of the Los Angeles City Council would like a word or two \u2014 to ban.<\/p>\n
Last July, the council adopted a motion to prohibit two terms \u2014 a racial epithet and a slur against women \u2014 during the legally required public comment periods of their meetings. As the rules document<\/a> states, anyone who says \u201cany variation of either of these words\u201d during public comment will be warned. If they say a banned word again at that meeting or any subsequent one, they\u2019ll be removed. Ejected speakers automatically are prohibited from attending future meetings for up to six business days.<\/p>\n This policy, championed by Council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson, is meant to push back against words he argues<\/a> are \u201cdesigned to attack someone\u2019s personhood and their protected status.\u201d<\/p>\n Now, you may loathe the words in question and never use them yourself. You may share the council\u2019s desire to make public comment more civil and appropriate. You may believe Harris-Dawson and the other council members\u2019 hearts are in the right place.<\/p>\n But make no mistake: The council is effectively claiming the authority to ban any words it decides are inappropriate or offensive in the future. That\u2019s a very dangerous power to grant any government official. Even if you agree today, you might not always be so fortunate.<\/p>\n Imagine a different council justifying bans on words like \u201ctrans woman\u201d or \u201ccisgender\u201d because they\u2019re \u201cdesigned to attack someone\u2019s personhood.\u201d Imagine council members banning the phrases \u201cfrom the river to the sea\u201d and \u201cglobalize the intifada\u201d because they believe these slogans are so offensive, they\u2019re inherently disruptive. That\u2019s the power the council is seizing.<\/p>\n And before you raise the slippery slope fallacy, listen to the council president\u2019s own words. Asked whether this was just the beginning of a more concerted effort to police \u201coffensive\u201d language during public meetings, Harris-Dawson replied<\/a>, \u201cAbsolutely. This is as much a step as we can take at this moment, we believe. But we think it will open us up to take additional steps in the future.\u201d<\/p>\n We should take him at his word.<\/p>\n It\u2019s certainly true that things can get ugly during public comment. During a March 2025 council meeting<\/a>, for example, a regular attendee spent his time at the podium leveling a series of expletive-laden complaints, hurling insults and slurs at council members, Jews, the pope and Black people.<\/p>\n Council meetings are frequented by many characters of this type, and it can be an understandably difficult and frustrating experience for those on the receiving end of these tirades. But the 1st Amendment reflects a judgment that, in a free society, it\u2019s safer to require officials to tolerate even vile language than to empower officials to decide what criticism is off-limits. The council can prohibit actual disruption of its proceedings, like speaking when not recognized, but it can\u2019t conflate harsh words with disruptive conduct.<\/p>\n Unfortunately, this is precisely the kind of conflation the council\u2019s ban allows it to make, and the ban isn\u2019t even limited to the use of slurs as insults. The rules make clear that speakers are prohibited from using the specified epithets during public comment \u201ceven though the speakers would use the words to express a non-offensive, non-vulgar viewpoint.\u201d Put another way, the words are banned regardless of context, including when criticizing the ban itself \u2014 which is what resident Stacey Segarra-Bohlinger was doing during a council meeting last Halloween.<\/p>\n Speaking during public comment, Segarra-Bohlinger protested the ban<\/a> on the slur against women, saying the council was \u201cafraid of the word.\u201d In accordance with all other council rules, she remained on topic, did not exceed her allotted time and did not otherwise interfere with the council\u2019s ability to conduct business. In other words, she didn\u2019t disrupt the meeting. <\/p>\n Councilmember Heather Hutt felt otherwise. She objected on the basis that the word offended her and insisted that the council president intervene. Segarra-Bohlinger was then warned and threatened with removal. When she protested again<\/a> in a similar fashion the following December, she was removed and banned from future meetings in response.<\/p>\n This unconstitutional overreach is why the First Amendment Coalition<\/a> and my organization, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression<\/a>, sent a demand letter<\/a> to the council: Repeal these rules now or face a lawsuit.<\/p>\n