The First Amendment Coalition and the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression are threatening legal action against the Los Angeles City Council. The organizations are challenging a rule that bans slurs and obscene language during public meetings, demanding its repeal within 30 days.
Council Rule 7 and the 30-Day Deadline for Repeal
Adopted on July 30, 2025, Council Rule 7 prohibits members of the public from using racial slurs or obscene terms while speaking during Los Angeles City Council and committee meetings. According to the report, the rule carries strict penalties: violators can be removed from the current meeting and barred from attending any other scheduled convenings for the remainder of the day, as well as the following business day.
The First Amendment Coalition and the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) are now demanding an unconditional commitment from the Los Angeles City Council to stop removing speakers based on their language, provided the speaker is not actually disrupting the proceedings.. Legal director David Loy and staff attorney Zachary Silver have stated that if the council does not repeal the ban and its exclusion provisions within 30 days, a lawsuit will be filed.
Stacey Segarra-Bohlinger's Removals in October and December
The legal threat centers on the experience of Stacey Segarra-Bohlinger, a Los Angeles resident who has been targeted by the word ban twice . As reported, the Los Angeles City Council enforced the rule against Segarra-Bohlinger in October and again in December, resulting in her removal from meetings and a temporary ban on her attendance. Segarra-Bohlinger has criticized the policy, agruing that the council is more offended by "bad words" than by police brutality against citizens and journalists.
The conflict escalated when Councilwoman Heather Hutt objected to language used by Segarra-Bohlinger, insisting that the council president implement the word ban. despite the removal, the reporting notes that Segarra-Bohlinger's comments remained on topic , did not exceed the allotted time limit, and did not interfere with the council's ability to conduct official business.
The Clash Between the California Brown Act and Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire
The legal battle pits the California Brown Act, which regulates open meetings for local government bodies, and the First Amendment against a narrow judicial doctrine. the First Amendment Coalition and FIRE argue that Council Rule 7 violates both state and federal law by restricting speech that does not cause a physical disruption. This reflects a broader tension in American municipal governance where the desire for "civility" often clashes with the constitutional right to petition the government without censorship.
In response, members of the Los Angeles City Council have defended their actions by citing Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, a 1942 U.S. Supreme Court ruling. This landmark case established the "fighting words" doctrine, which allows the government to regulate speech that is intended to incite immediate violence or provoke a breach of the peace. The council contends that individuals using offensive epithets are doing so specifically to cause injury and offense, thereby falling outside First Amendment protections.
The Missing Definition of 'Obscene' Terms
While the Los Angeles City Council relies on the concept of obscenity and slurs to justify Rule 7, the specific criteria for what constitutes an "obscene term" remain unverified. The source does not provide a comprehensive list of the banned words, nor does it clarify whether the council uses a standardized legal definition of obscenity or if the determination is left to the subjective discretion of council members like Heather Hutt.
Furthermore, the report only presents the arguments from the First Amendment Coalition, FIRE, and the council's general defense.. It remains unclear if other Los Angeles residents have been removed under Rule 7 or if the enforcement has been applied consistently across different political viewpoints.
Comments 0