LA Councilmember’s Push to Ban Offensive Language at Meetings Sparks Debate

Los Angeles City Councilmember Marqueece Harris-Dawson has proposed a motion to ban certain offensive language, specifically the N-word and C-word, during city council and committee meetings. The proposal comes after Harris-Dawson noted that such language, often used by a small group of frequent commenters, has disrupted meetings and made participation difficult for others. He highlighted an incident during Jorge Nuño’s confirmation hearing for a city position, where Nuño’s family faced anti-Black slurs, prompting some attendees to leave. Harris-Dawson told the Westside Current’s Jon Regardie, “I’m eager to get in front of a judge and show them a video of what happens in L.A. City Council and committee, and ask her or him if they think this is what is intended by the free speech that we’re granted in the First Amendment and the Brown Act.”

The motion has sparked a debate over free speech protections. Attorney Wayne Spindler, who has used such language himself, called the proposal “illegal,” arguing that courts have consistently protected such language under the First Amendment. A 2013 ruling by Judge Dean Pregerson in the Zuma Dogg and Matt Dowd case supports this view, stating, “In one of the largest cities in the world, it is to be expected that some inhabitants will sometimes use language that does not conform to conventions of civility and decorum, including offensive language and swear-words… First Amendment jurisprudence is clear that the way to oppose offensive speech is by more speech, not censorship, enforced silence or eviction from legitimately occupied public space.” Meanwhile, Unrig LA organizer Rob Quan argued that other council actions, like reducing speaking opportunities, are more to blame for discouraging public participation than the language itself. Frequent commenter Armando Herman has continued using the targeted language, asserting it as “protected speech.”

As reported by Daniel Guss, the proposal also raises questions about enforcement. Public commenters may find ways to circumvent potential bans by using homophonic words or referencing sources like “YouParkLikeACunt.com,” a website with over 32,000 followers on Twitter, in the context of agenda items such as vehicle parking. Harris-Dawson’s motion, if passed, would need to navigate these legal and practical challenges.

West Hollywood has its own guidelines for public comment, established in a 2013 Code of Conduct that prohibits cursing and other disruptive behaviors such as whistling, foot stomping, or speaking out of turn during meetings. The intent, as stated by then-Mayor Abbe Land, was to ensure that people could express their opinions without feeling threatened, suggesting a general emphasis on maintaining respectful dialogue. However, the Code’s application isn’t strictly about banning all expletives regardless of context—it’s about maintaining order. The 2013 rules were designed to balance free expression with a respectful environment, as noted by Councilmember John D’Amico’s concern at the time that such restrictions might discourage open speech. As LA grapples with this issue, WeHo residents may want to consider how such policies could influence their own public forums and the balance between decorum and free expression in a community that values both.

**Editor’s Note**: An earlier version of this article forgot a citation to Daniel Guss’s Substack column. This has been corrected, and we apologize for the oversight.