Markets 
The Los Angeles City Council is barreling toward a First Amendment showdown after trying to police what Americans can — and can’t — say during public meetings.
The city is facing the threat of a lawsuit from two of the nation’s leading free speech groups over a controversial rule that bars members of the public from using two offensive slurs while addressing the City Council.
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) and the First Amendment Coalition have given city leaders 30 days to repeal Council Rule 7 and make an “unconditional commitment” to stop its enforcement.
The organizations argue the city has crossed a constitutional line by banning specific words outright, setting up a high-stakes legal fight over whether elected officials can dictate protected speech in a public forum.
If not, the groups say they’ll file suit on behalf of Los Angeles resident Stacey Segarra-Bohlinger, who they say has already been punished twice under the policy.
“The Constitution forbids the government from banning words,” FIRE said in a statement Thursday, arguing that however offensive the language may be, it remains protected by the First Amendment.
The rule, approved unanimously in a 14-0 vote on July 30, 2025, bars members of the public from using the so-called “N-word,” the “C-word” or “any variation” of either term during public comment before the City Council or its committees.
The ban goes beyond the words themselves.
It also outlaws plural forms and versions created by adding suffixes such as “-ish,” “-y,” “-ly” and “-ing.”
Anyone who violates the rule can be thrown out of the remainder of the meeting and barred from attending any other council meetings held later that day.
Repeat offenders can be banned from future meetings for up to six business days, according to FIRE.
Council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson introduced the measure in March 2025, arguing repeated use of the slurs had inflamed tensions, nearly sparked physical confrontations and discouraged residents from participating in city business.
Supporters pointed to the Supreme Court’s 1942 decision in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, which carved out the narrow “fighting words” exception to First Amendment protections.
But FIRE and the First Amendment Coalition argue Los Angeles has gone far beyond that limited exception by punishing people simply for saying forbidden words, even when they’re criticizing the city’s own censorship policy.
Their legal challenge centers on Segarra-Bohlinger, a regular speaker during public-comment periods.
According to a letter sent to Harris-Dawson and City Attorney Hydee Feldstein Soto, Segarra-Bohlinger criticized the council’s speech restrictions during an Oct. 31, 2025, meeting by saying the council was “afraid of the word ‘c–t.’”
She then added: “Kind of insane how you’re more offended by bad words than police brutalizing citizens and journalists in the streets.”
The advocacy groups say her remarks stayed on topic, remained within her allotted speaking time and did not disrupt the meeting or interfere with council business.
Still, Councilmember Heather Hutt objected to the language and urged Council President Pro Tempore Bob Blumenfield, who was presiding over the meeting, to enforce the rule.
Blumenfield warned Segarra-Bohlinger that using the prohibited word again would get her removed.
On Dec. 3, 2025, that warning became reality.
Segarra-Bohlinger again used the word while criticizing the policy, was ejected from the meeting and barred from attending any additional council meetings scheduled that day.
In their letter, FIRE staff attorney Zachary Silver and First Amendment Coalition legal director David Loy argue the rule violates both the First Amendment and California’s Brown Act because it discriminates based on viewpoint, imposes unreasonable restrictions on public comment and allows officials to remove speakers whose remarks don’t actually disrupt meetings.
The groups are urging the city to scrap the word ban and its enforcement provisions before the dispute lands in court.
“We hope the council will take this opportunity to bring its meeting rules into compliance with the First Amendment and Brown Act without need for litigation,” the letter states.
Harris-Dawson has also suggested the current ban may only be the beginning.
“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,” he said.
In another instance, he added, “We’re going to try to get in all the terms.”
According to FIRE, Harris-Dawson has also publicly stated he is “eager to get in front of a judge.”
The 15-member LA City Council consists of 10 Democrats, 4 democratic socialists, and 1 Independent, with 0 Republicans.
Read the full article here
