Seven Los Angeles City Council members Friday introduced a motion seeking to prohibit the use of two specific offensive epithets during civic meetings.
Council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson is leading an effort that would rein in the use of the so-called N-word and C-word, and variations of those racial and sexist epithets. His colleagues Tim McOsker, Eunisses Hernandez, Curren Price, Nithya Raman, Katy Yaroslavsky and Imelda Padilla signed the motion in support.
The council and its various committees have been plagued by foul-mouthed gadflies in recent years. The deputy city attorney often explains that City Council members do not condone the remarks, but must allow them under the First Amendment.
Additionally, the city must comply with the Brown Act and the state constitution, which regulate open meetings for local government bodies.
“These duties come into conflict when some members of the public in their comments to council and its committees use certain offensive epithets,” the motion reads. “At their worst, these members of the public refer to Black members of the public, city staff and council members using the `N-word’ and to female members of the public, city staff, and council members using the `C-word.”’
Council members contend individuals who use these offensive words are doing so with the aim of “offense and injury itself.”
In the motion, council members argue that they have a good case expanding their rules of decorum under what is known as Rule 7, which regulates public comment. The rule says that a speaker who goes off topic or disrupts a meeting will get a warning, followed by censure that could extend to other scheduled meetings for the day. Multiple violations can lead to a three-day ban or longer.
Council members say they are empowered to take action, citing a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 1942, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire.
The landmark case established the “fighting words” doctrine, limiting the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech. It set a precedent for regulating speech that incites violence or provokes a breach of peace.
“… Resort to epithets or personal abuse is not in any proper sense communication of information or opinion safeguarded by the constitution,” according to the ruling.
Elected officials also say these offensive remarks are disruptive to the city’s business and other residents, who attend meetings and wish to provide comments.
“By creating public spaces many constituents find repellant, these toxifying modes of expression make it intolerable for many members of the public to attend and participate in the meetings,” according to the motion.
Council members proposed initial warnings before removing someone from meetings for using the epithets — ensuring they have an opportunity to comment and not infringing upon their freedom of speech. The motion is next expected to be heard by the Rules, Elections, Intergovernmental Relations Committee.