First Amendment organizations Thursday threatened litigation against the Los Angeles City Council if they fail to rescind a word ban placed on speakers, arguing the rule violates the Constitution and state law.
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression and the First Amendment Coalition sent a letter to Council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson and City Attorney Hydee Feldstein Soto to immediately provide an “unconditional commitment” to “cease, desist from and not repeat” removing or threatening to remove a speaker based on the language they use absent actual disruption of a meeting. They requested the word ban and associated exclusion provisions be repealed within 30 days of receipt of their letter.
Specifically, they intend to represent Stacey Segarra-Bohlinger, a Los Angeles resident who regularly attends and speaks during the public-comment portions of council and committee meetings, who has been kicked out of council meetings and barred from attending other scheduled convenings under the council rule.
If the council does not provide the requested commitment and repeal the “unconstitutional Word Ban and Exclusion Provisions,” Segarra-Bohlinger intends to file suit, according to the letter written by David Loy, legal director for the First Amendment Coalition, and Zachary Silver, a staff attorney for the foundation.
A representative for Harris-Dawson did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
On July 30, 2025, the City Council adopted Council Rule 7, a word ban prohibiting members of the public speaking during council and committee meetings from saying a racial slur and an obscene term for a woman, and “any variation of either of these words regardless of the context in which they are used” — or the so-called “N-word” and “C-word.” Harris-Dawson introduced the motion to implement the ban.
Violators of the rule can be excluded from the remainder of that meeting, and all other meetings later in the day, as well as the following business day.
In recent years, the City Council and its committees have been plagued by foul-mouthed gadflies. A deputy city attorney often explains that City Council members do not condone the remarks, but must adhere to the First Amendment.
Some of these speakers have attacked elected officials based on their weight, sexual orientation, gender and race.
City officials, at the time, emphasized that they must adhere to the First Amendment but also to the California Brown Act, which regulates 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.”
Council members argued they can 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.
Since the rule has been in effect, the council has used it to remove speakers and bar them from attending other meetings. Segarra-Bohlinger was one of those individuals.
In their letter, the organizations noted Segarra-Bohlinger criticized the council’s word ban by remarking that the council was “afraid of the word `c—”’ on Oct. 31, 2025.
She continued by saing, “Kind of insane how you’re more offended by bad words than police brutalizing citizens and journalists in the streets.”
Segarra-Bohlinger’s comments remained on topic, did not exceed her allotted time, did not disrupt the meeting and did not otherwise interfere with the council’s ability to conduct business, according to the two organizations.
However, Councilwoman Heather Hutt had objected that the word had offender her and insisted that Council President Tempore Bob Blumenfield, who was presiding over that meeting, implement Council Rule 7.
Blumenfield warned Segarra-Bohlinger the word was prohibited, and that any future use would result in her being ejected from the meeting.
On Dec. 3, 2025, the council enforced the word ban against Segarra-Bohlinger a second time after she used the word “c—” while criticizing council members for their rule. She was ultimately removed from the meeting and banned from attending any other meetings that day.
The First Amendment organizations state the rule is invalid for at least three reasons: that it violates the First Amendment because it discriminates based on viewpoint, that it is unreasonable during public-comment periods, and that it is unlawful because it authorizes removing a speaker absent actual disruption of a meeting.
“We hope the council will take this opportunity to bring it’s meeting rules into compliance with the First Amendment and Brown Act without need for litigation,” the letter reads.