FIRE demands LA City Council end policy banning certain words during public comment

LOS ANGELES, July 23, 2026 — The Constitution forbids the government from banning words.

But the Los Angeles City Council doesn’t seem to understand. In a recent move, the council banned the words “cunt,” “nigger,” and any of their “variations” during public comment periods at public meetings — words that, however offensive one may find them, are protected by the First Amendment. 

The council has a choice: Follow the law or face a lawsuit from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression and the First Amendment Coalition, which outlined the rules’ constitutional problems in a letter sent to city officials on Thursday.

“Free speech is under attack across the country,” said Stacey Segarra-Bohlinger, a member of her neighborhood council who ran afoul of the word ban for saying “cunt” while criticizing the council for adopting the rule. “We can't let the city council set such a dark precedent. 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.”

In July 2025, the LA City Council enacted the word ban in response to complaints about attendees using the words while speaking during the public-comment portion of meetings. The text of the word ban doesn’t even identify the words directly, instead going to great lengths to spell them out:  

A public speaker may not use the N-word or C-word, or any variation of either of these words, in a Council or Committee meeting. To avoid ambiguity, the N-word is spelled ‘n’ followed by ‘i’ followed by ‘g’ followed by ‘g’ followed by ‘e’ followed by ‘r.’ The C-word is spelled ‘c’ followed by ‘u’ followed by ‘n’ followed by ‘t.’ Examples of variations of these epithets include, but are not limited to, the words' plural forms and words created by adding ‘-ish,’ ‘-y,’ ‘-ly’ or ‘-ing’ to create related adjectives, adverbs, verbs, or gerundives.

Concerned that the word ban violated her free speech rights, Stacey took the podium in October. Singing to the tune of the “Ghostbusters” theme song, she criticized the policy and the council for being “afraid of the word ‘cunt.’” She continued, “Kind of insane how you’re more offended by bad words than police brutalizing citizens and journalists in the streets.” The council warned her that if she used a banned word again, she would be removed. About a month later, Stacey protested the ban again, this time singing, “Still I won’t call you a cunt,” to the tune of “Someone Like You” by Adele. The council again warned her, and then removed her from the meeting and barred her from attending committee meetings for the rest of that day when she repeated the word.

COURTESY PHOTOS OF STACEY

In addition to prohibiting the banned words and any variation of them, the council adopted a separate rule banning someone who is removed from a meeting from attending future meetings for up to six business days depending on their recent removal history. This means a person who uses a banned word is not only subject to removal from one meeting, but from future meetings as well. That’s an obvious violation of their right to petition their government. 

According to Council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson, the primary sponsor of both rules, the word ban is only the first step in council leadership’s plan to more broadly regulate speech it deems offensive. He has publicly stated he is “eager to get in front of a judge.”

Harris-Dawson has elaborated: “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.” In another instance, he said, “We’re going to try to get in all the terms.”

Take the council president at his word: Allowing the government to ban some words today will lead to the government banning more words tomorrow. That’s why the First Amendment prevents the government from taking the first step down this slippery slope — particularly when most find the targeted words repugnant. 

“A government that gets away with censorship won’t stop at just two words. It will target other speech, too — particularly criticism,” said FIRE attorney Zach Silver. “The council president himself has said he wants to ban more words in the future, and you should believe him.”

As FIRE and the First Amendment Coalition explain in today’s cease and desist letter, the word ban codifies unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. It assumes that anyone who uses these words has a viewpoint that doesn’t deserve to see the light of day. But the Constitution does not permit the council to prohibit speech merely because it perceives that speech as offensive. In the words of the Supreme Court, “one man’s vulgarity is another’s lyric.” 

In addition to violating the Constitution, the new rules also violate the Ralph M. Brown Act, a California law requiring government meetings to be open to the public and guaranteeing the public’s right to attend and participate in those meetings. The Brown Act already authorizes the council to remove a speaker who disrupts a meeting, such as by exceeding their allotted time or speaking about matters over which the council has no jurisdiction — but using a particular word falls well short of this standard.

“The first target of censorship is never the last,” said David Loy, the First Amendment Coalition’s legal director. “Censorship anywhere gives aid and comfort to censorship everywhere. Now more than ever, it is essential to protect free speech against official attack from any quarter.”

FIRE and the First Amendment Coalition’s letter directly challenges the word ban and the rule barring speakers from subsequent meetings and warns the council that if it declines to repeal those rules within 30 days, FIRE and the First Amendment Coalition will file a lawsuit.

“The First Amendment does not permit viewpoint-based restrictions disguised as civility rules,” 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 Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought — the most essential qualities of liberty. FIRE educates Americans about the importance of these inalienable rights, promotes a culture of respect for these rights, and provides the means to preserve them. 

The First Amendment Coalition protects and promotes a free press, freedom of expression, and the people’s right to know. Nonpartisan and nonprofit, FAC believes that the broadest range of engaged and informed communities is essential to the health of our democracy — that the values expressed by the First Amendment provide a blueprint for an inclusive, equitable society and a responsive, accountable government. To that end, FAC educates, advocates, and litigates to advance government transparency and First Amendment protections for all.

CONTACT
Katie Stalcup, Communications Campaign Manager, FIRE: 215-717-3473; media@thefire.org