LA banned the N and C words from council meetings. Does the First Amendment allow that?

Show Caption

As deadly wildfires raged across Southern California in January, a Los Angeles city official lamented to the city council and others how they were forced to listen to hateful, vulgar language from some members of the public. 

He thanked the audience for their patience in listening to one man's tirade in which he yelled "burn, Palisades, burn!" and used the N-word to describe council members.

It was far from an isolated incident.

A small group of people have repeatedly showed up to comment at the council meetings, spewing the N-word and C-word while ranting about everything from the city's homeless crisis to mask-wearing and the 2028 Olympics.

Council members finally had enough.

In late July, they passed a motion banning the public from using those two words during council meetings, despite warnings from First Amendment groups that the move could put the city on a slippery slope toward unconstitutional censorship.

Already, the ban is getting put to the test.

Just two days after the council passed the new rule, a man used the N-word three times in less than 10 seconds during his three minutes of speaking time. 

Council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson asked for the clerk to pause his time.  

“Speaker, you have used the N-word, which is a violation of Council Rule 7,” Harris-Dawson said. “This is your only warning that this word and any of its variations described in Council Rule 7 may not be used again in this council meeting, any future council meeting or future council committee meetings.”  

If the man continued to use the term, Harris-Dawson said, he would risk forfeiting the rest of his speaking time and being removed from the meeting.  

The council's motion said the N-word and the C-word, a crude term often used to disparage women, are the “most frequently used offensive and injurious epithets” at city council meetings.  

It said such words are “inherently harmful,” citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1942 decision in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. The ruling said some terms “by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.” 

Such “fighting words,” the court found, are not protected by the First Amendment. That's the argument city officials are making to justify the ban. These aren't ordinary words, city officials say.

Under the new rule, a speaker who uses the term will first receive a verbal warning. If they use it again, the presiding officer will again tell them they cannot use such language and indicate that the need to reissue the warning has disrupted the meeting, therefore allowing the council to cut off the speaker. The speaker may also be removed from the proceedings and banned from future meetings, according to the motion. 

It specifies that violations of the rule would not invoke criminal or financial penalties.  

'The cost is too high,' First Amendment group says

Free speech groups have raised concerns about the rule and its First Amendment implications.  

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), urged the council not to adopt the measure, saying in an April 29 letter the rule would “implement an unconstitutional solution when better alternatives that do not infringe on the speech rights of your constituents are available.”  

Likewise, the First Amendment Coalition, a nonprofit organization that focuses on First Amendment issues in California, wrote a similarly worded letter to the council raising concerns. The group said it "understands and sympathizes" with the city over the words and their impact on the community.

Still, the group said the rule violates the First Amendment and opens the city up to lawsuits.

"As with other ill-fated attempts to silence offensive speech, that result would amplify the objectionable message 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 at restricting offensive speech often lead to censorship of those they are intended to protect."

But the council’s motion, which was presented in March and passed on July 30, argued that action was necessary because the terms had been used and disrupted the meetings “on many occasions.” The sergeants-at-arms “prevented fights that were on the cusp of breaking out” on at least two occasions, the motion said. 

It acknowledged that the council “faces competing duties” in being obligated to hear from the public and give them opportunities to exercise their First Amendment rights while still protecting council members and others in attendance at the meetings.  

“It is understandable, given the rough and tumble of city council hearings why governments would want rules of decorum,” said Ben Wizner, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Speech, Privacy and Technology Project. “The problem is, the cost is too high, and it gives them too much authority to suppress and censor opposing views.”

But a spokesperson for Harris-Dawson said the measure was not meant to suppress free speech. 

“This is not a ban on offensive speech in general, nor does it limit the public's right to criticize, protest, or speak passionately,” the spokesperson said. “Instead, it draws a line at language that, by consistent and documented use, has disrupted the Council's ability to conduct public business and discouraged public participation.” 

Los Angeles City Council meetings compared to ‘Jerry Springer’ 

Harris-Dawson’s spokesperson described the ban as a “narrowly focused rule” meant to prevent disruptions and maintain a civil environment. 

“These slurs are not being restricted because of the viewpoints they may express, but because they have repeatedly incited disruption, escalated tensions and silenced the participation of others,” the spokesperson said.  

Right before council meeting broadcasts begin, a disclaimer warns that the “following content may contain offensive language not suitable for some audiences” and that “viewer discretion is advised.” 

“It’s almost like you’re about to watch an episode of ‘Jerry Springer,’” said Stephanie Jablonsky, FIRE's senior program counsel for public advocacy.

During the council’s July 30 meeting, a member of the public repeatedly used both terms and said the council could make him a “millionaire” after he sues on free speech grounds. The council voted in 2014 to settle a free speech lawsuit brought by a man who was kicked out of a city commission meeting for wearing a Ku Klux Klan hood and shirt emblazoned with the N-word.

Another man used the N-word several times in condemning the rule, along with a call to “send the Jews back to Israel” and a reference to President Donald Trump’s administration being “the only America of constitutional betterment.” 

Kathy Schreiner, the president of the Van Nuys Neighborhood Council, which urged the city council to pass the measure, said her group’s meetings have also been disrupted by such language. 

Schreiner said she has "frequently been called the C-word" since starting her position in December 2022. The council's former president, Michael Browning, was also “frequently” called the N-word in meetings throughout his two-year tenure, she wrote.  

“The (Van Nuys Neighborhood Council) has an unusually small attendance from the public at our meetings, and we know that one major reason is how difficult it is to sit through meetings where so many vulgar and nasty public comments are made,” Schreiner said.  

She requested the city council “explore whether there is some way you could help prohibit the use of these epithets at all Neighborhood Council Board and Committee meetings.” 

The Palms Neighborhood Council also asked for the city council to pass the ban and “apply the same changes to Neighborhood Council meetings.” Both city and neighborhood council meetings attract people who are “able to disrupt discussions for sport” using “vile language and pointless hate speech,” the statement read.  

“Transparency in government is crucial, and stakeholders must be allowed to criticize the work of government without fear of reprisal,” the statement went on to say. “But this process is actually degraded and undermined when individuals with no productive aims destroy the public dialogue and engagement with hate speech targeted only at blowing up the process.”  

City says rule about preserving access, 'not censoring ideas'

But the First Amendment “exists for this exact reason,” Jablonsky said. 

The remedy, in her view, is to “punish the disruption” and not the speaker. Though certain terms may be offensive and harmful to many people, Jablonsky said it’s vital to resist any efforts to ban words.  

“If we don’t, we are setting a dangerous precedent for government to regulate what we say,” she said. “Any inch they are given will absolutely get used.” 

Wizner agreed, saying the “only speech that needs constitutional protection is speech that deeply offends." 

The ACLU’s 2024 article, “Defending Speech We Hate,” noted that the organization has defended the free speech rights of numerous groups it strongly disagrees with – among them neo-Nazis, white supremacists and the National Rifle Association.  

“Our view is if the First Amendment doesn’t protect the NRA in New York, it doesn’t protect the ACLU in Texas,” Wizner said. 

But the council has maintained that its actions are both legal and necessary to address terms that have “repeatedly incited disruption, escalated tensions and silenced the participation of others” at meetings.  

“Just like courtrooms and school board meetings, Council Chambers are limited public forums where reasonable time, place, and manner rules apply,” Harris-Dawson's spokesperson said. “This motion is about preserving access and safety for everyone, not censoring ideas, but safeguarding the ability of all residents to speak and be heard without intimidation or verbal abuse.” 

BrieAnna Frank is a First Amendment Reporting Fellow at Paste BN. Reach her at bjfrank@usatoday.com.

Paste BN's coverage of First Amendment issues is funded through a collaboration between the Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners. Funders do not provide editorial input.