Los Angeles Faces First Amendment Challenge Over Ban on N-Word, C-Word

Los Angeles, CA – The Los Angeles City Council is facing a constitutional challenge after adopting a policy that prohibits members of the public from using the racial slur commonly known as the N-word and the misogynistic slur commonly known as the C-word during council and committee meetings.

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) and the First Amendment Coalition sent a cease-and-desist letter to city officials Thursday, demanding the council repeal the rule within 30 days or face a federal lawsuit. The organizations argue the policy violates the First Amendment by banning protected speech based solely on the words a speaker chooses to use.

Rule spells out prohibited words

The policy, adopted by the council last year, prohibits public speakers from using the two slurs “or any variation” of those words during council or committee meetings. Rather than naming the words directly, the rule spells them out letter by letter and extends the prohibition to plural forms and modified versions ending in suffixes such as “-ish,” “-y,” “-ly,” and “-ing.”

Under the rule, a speaker who uses one of the prohibited words receives a warning on the first offense. A second use during the same meeting—or at any future council or committee meeting—can result in the speaker being removed from the meeting and prohibited from participating for the remainder of the day.

The council also adopted a related policy allowing individuals removed from meetings to be barred from attending future meetings for up to six business days, depending on their prior removal history.

Free speech groups threaten lawsuit

FIRE contends the policy violates long-established First Amendment protections, even if the prohibited language is offensive.

“The Constitution forbids the government from banning words,” FIRE wrote in announcing its legal challenge.

“The First Amendment does not permit viewpoint-based restrictions disguised as civility rules,” FIRE attorney Zach Silver said. “There are no carve-outs for any particular words. City councils have to answer to the highest law of the land — the Constitution.”

The legal groups argue the city’s policy amounts to unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination because it prohibits speech based on its content rather than whether it actually disrupts a meeting.

According to the cease-and-desist letter, California’s Ralph M. Brown Act already gives local governments authority to remove speakers who genuinely disrupt public meetings by exceeding time limits or refusing to stay on topic. Simply uttering an offensive word, the organizations argue, does not meet that legal standard.

Resident became focus of dispute

The dispute centers in part on Stacey Segarra-Bohlinger, a Los Angeles neighborhood council member who intentionally used the prohibited language while criticizing the city’s censorship policy.

According to FIRE, Segarra-Bohlinger first challenged the rule by singing to the tune of the “Ghostbusters” theme song and later returned to perform a parody of Adele’s “Someone Like You.” During both appearances, she used the prohibited misogynistic slur while arguing the city was placing greater emphasis on policing language than addressing public safety concerns.

“We can’t let the city council set such a dark precedent,” Segarra-Bohlinger said.

“While I don’t condone the use of slurs or epithets to insult or dehumanize others, I strongly oppose any infringement on the right of the public to speak freely, and that includes using strong language when it feels necessary.”

After repeated warnings, council officials removed her from the meeting and prohibited her from attending committee meetings for the remainder of the day under the new rule.

Council president signals broader effort

FIRE also points to public comments by Los Angeles City Council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson, the primary sponsor of the rules, as evidence the city intends to broaden restrictions on speech.

According to FIRE, Harris-Dawson said he was “eager to get in front of a judge” over the ordinance and described the ban as only an initial step.

“This is as much a step as we can take at this moment, we believe,” Harris-Dawson said, according to FIRE. “But we think it will open us up to take additional steps in the future.”

The council president also reportedly said, “We’re going to try to get in all the terms.”

FIRE argues those statements demonstrate an intention to expand government regulation of speech beyond the current list of prohibited words.

The dispute could become a significant First Amendment test over whether local governments may prohibit specific offensive words during public meetings while still allowing public comment.

Supporters of the legal challenge argue the Constitution protects even deeply offensive speech when directed at government officials, while local governments generally maintain they have authority to preserve order and civility during public proceedings.

If the Los Angeles City Council declines to rescind the policy within the 30-day deadline outlined in the cease-and-desist letter, FIRE and the First Amendment Coalition say they intend to file suit in federal court seeking to have the rules declared unconstitutional.