The Council called it “narrow focused rules” to curb continued disruption during the meeting. However, some revision groups are concerned about putting the city on slippery slopes.
LA Council will be holding the “n” and “c” words at public meetings.
The Los Angeles City Council banned the use of the “N” and “C” words at meetings, citing Scotus precedents.
- The city council passed a motion banning two terms on July 30, stating that they were “the most frequently used offensive and harmful episodes.”
- Several local neighbourhood councils supported the measure saying the conditions were regularly used at meetings. They asked the council to consider ways to deal with these confusion.
- Civil Liberties Group said they understand the city’s desire to deal with the chaos, but they said the rules violate their right to free speech and could lead to legal action against the city.
A deadly wildfire in Southern California in January made Los Angeles officials listen to the city council and others from the public about how they were forced to listen to hateful and vulgar language.
He thanked the audience for being patient with hearing the Tilade of one man who cried out “Birn, Pallisade, Burn!” I used n-words to explain councillors.
It was far from an isolated incident.
A small group of people appeared repeatedly, commenting on council meetings, spewing N and C words, ranting everything from the urban homeless crisis to maskwearing and the 2028 Olympics.
The council members were finally sufficient.
In late July, they passed a motion banning the use of these two words during council meetings despite warnings from First Amendment groups.
The ban has already been tested.
Just two days after the council passed the new rules, the man used the N-word three times in under 10 seconds for three minutes of speaking time.
Council President Markey Harris Dawson asked the store clerk to pause his time.
“Speaker, you used the N-word, a violation of Council Rule 7,” Harris Dawson said. “This is your only warning that this term and any of its variations listed in Council Rule 7 may not be used again at this Council meeting, a future Council, or a future Council committee meeting.”
If the man continued to use the term, Harris Dawson said he would confiscate the rest of his speech time and risk being removed from the meeting.
The council claim calls the term “the most frequently used offensive and harmful epithethets” at city council meetings “the most frequently used.”
Such words are “intrinsically harmful” and Chaplinskyv. He said he cited the US Supreme Court’s 1942 decision at New Hampshire. The verdict said it was subject to a condition that “they tend to inflict injuries or incite an immediate violation of peace by their comments.”
Such “words of battle” are not protected by the initial revision. That’s the argument that city officials are making to justify the ban. These are not ordinary words, city officials say.
Under the new rules, speakers using the terminology will first receive verbal warnings. If they use it again, the Chairperson will re-instruct them that they cannot use such language, indicating that the need to reissue the warning will disrupt the meeting and therefore allow the council to block speakers. Speakers may also be removed from the lawsuit and may be banned from future meetings.
It specifies that violations of the rules do not invoke criminal or financial punishment.
“The cost is too high,” says the First Amendment Group
The Free Speech Group raised concerns about the rules and their First Amendment impact.
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (Fire) urged the Council not to adopt measures, saying in a letter on April 29th that “we will implement unconstitutional solutions if better alternatives are available that do not infringe on the audio rights of its members.”
Similarly, the First Coalition of Amendments, a nonprofit focused on the issue of California’s First Amendment Conditions, similarly wrote a wording letter to the council raising concerns. The group said it “understands and sympathizes” with the city about its language and its impact on the community.
Still, the group said the rules violate the First Amendment and would open the city to a lawsuit.
“Like other unfortunate attempts to silence offensive speeches, the outcome will amplify unfavourable messages and allow those who utter it to claim victory as defenders of free speech,” the group wrote. “Also, the first victim of censorship is rarely the last, and attempts to limit offensive speeches often lead to censorship of those who are intended to protect them.”
However, the council’s claim, presented in March and passed on July 30, argued that action was necessary as the terms were used and disrupt the meeting “often”; The sergeant “prevented a pointy fight to escape,” the motion said at least twice.
The Council has acknowledged that it is “facing a competing obligation” to the public, and that it is “facing a competing obligation” to the obligation to provide the opportunity to exercise their initial right of amendment, while protecting council members and others present at the meeting.
“It makes sense given the rough tipping of city council hearings, given the reasons why the government wants rules of politeness,” said Ben Wisner, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s speech, privacy and technology projects. “The problem is that it’s too expensive, giving too much authority to curb dissent and censor against it.”
However, a Harris-Dawson spokesman said the measure was not intended to curb freedom of speech.
“This is not a general ban on offensive speeches and does not limit the right of the public to passionately criticize, protest or speak,” the spokesman said. “Instead, it draws the line that, in language, it disrupts the capabilities of councils that conduct public works, and blocks public participation, with consistent, documented use.”
Los Angeles City Council meeting compared to “Jerry Springer”
A spokesman for Harris-Dawson described the ban as a “narrow focused rule” intended to prevent confusion and maintain a civic environment.
“These slurs are not limited because of the perspectives they may express, but because they repeatedly caused confusion, intensified tensions and silenced the participation of others,” the spokesman said.
Just before the council meeting airs, the disclaimer warns that “the following content may contain offensive languages that are not suitable for some viewers” and that “viewers are advised.”
“It’s like trying to watch an episode of ‘Jerry Springer’,” said Stephanie Jablonski, senior program counsel for public advocacy at Fire.
At the Council’s July 30 meeting, members of the nation repeatedly used both terms and the Council said he could make him a “billionaire” after he sues in a free speech situation. The council voted to resolve a free speech lawsuit brought on by a man who was kicked out of a city committee meeting in 2014 for wearing a shirt decorated with Ku Klux Klan Hood and N-Word.
Another man used the N-word several times in denouncement of the rules, along with a call to “send Jews back to Israel” and a reference to President Donald Trump’s administration, “the only US to improve the constitution.”
Kathy Schreiner, chairman of the Van Nuys Neighborhood Council, urged the city council to pass the measure, but said her group’s meetings were also confused by such language.
Schreiner said she has been “frequently referred to as the C-word” since she began her position in December 2022. Former Council President Michael Browning was called “frequently” at meetings during his two-year tenure.
“The (Van Nuys Neighborhood Council) has an unusually low attendance from the public at our meetings. We know there’s a big reason why it’s hard to sit through a meeting where there’s a lot of vulgar and nasty public comments,” Schreiner says.
She requested the city council to “explorate whether there is a way to ban the use of these epithets at all meetings of the Neighborhood Council and Committee.”
Palms Neighborhood Council also passed a ban on the city council and called for “the same changes to the Neighborhood Council.” Both city and neighbourhood council meetings will attract people who can “confuse discussions for sports” using “despicable language and meaningless hate speech,” the statement read.
“Government transparency is extremely important and stakeholders must be allowed to criticize the government’s work without fear of retaliation,” the statement continued. “But this process actually deteriorates and is undermined when individuals with no productive purpose destroy the general dialogue and engagement with hate speech, which is targeted solely to blow up the process.”
City states rules about storing access “don’t censor ideas”
But the first revision “exist for this exact reason,” Jablonsky said.
In her view, the remedy is to “punish confusion” rather than speakers. While certain terms can be aggressive and harmful to many people, Jablonsky said it is essential to resist efforts to ban words.
“If we don’t, we’re setting a dangerous precedent for the government to regulate what we say,” she said. “The given inch will definitely be used.”
Wisner agreed, saying, “Only speeches that require constitutional protection are deep-angered speeches.”
The ACLU’s 2024 article, “Advocating for Speeches We Don’t Like,” said the organization defends the free speech rights of numerous groups that it strongly opposes, including neo-Nazis, white supremacists and the National Rifle Association.
“Our view is that if the First Amendment doesn’t protect the NRA in New York, it won’t protect the ACLU in Texas,” Wisner said.
However, the Council argues that its actions are necessary and necessary to address the term “repeated confusion, escalated tensions, and silenced the participation of others.”
“Just like courtrooms and school board meetings, the Council’s Chamber of Commerce is a limited public forum where reasonable time, place and manners rules apply,” a spokesman for Harris Dawson said.
Brieanna Frank is USA Today’s first revised reporting fellow. Contact her at bjfrank@usatoday.com.
Reports on the First Amendment issue for USA Today are funded through collaborations between the Freedom Forum and Journalism’s fundraising partners. Funders do not provide editor input.
