Free speech organizations are threatening a lawsuit against the Los Angeles City Council over a recently implemented rule that prohibits the use of certain offensive slurs during public meetings. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) and the First Amendment Coalition have given the council 30 days to repeal Council Rule 7, which bans the "N-word," the "C-word," and any variations thereof, or face legal action.
In a letter sent to city leaders, the groups argue that the rule, approved unanimously on July 30, 2025, crosses a constitutional line by outright banning specific words, asserting that the First Amendment protects even offensive language. Violators of the rule can be removed from meetings and barred from attending subsequent sessions on the same day. Repeat offenders could face bans of up to six business days.
Council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson introduced the measure in March 2025, citing instances where the repeated use of slurs had escalated tensions, nearly led to physical altercations, and discouraged public participation. Supporters of the rule have pointed to the Supreme Court's "fighting words" exception, established in the 1942 case Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, which allows for the restriction of speech that incites immediate violence.
However, FIRE and the First Amendment Coalition contend that Los Angeles has exceeded this narrow exception. Their legal challenge focuses on Los Angeles resident Stacey Segarra-Bohlinger, who was reportedly punished twice under the policy. According to the groups, Segarra-Bohlinger used the "C-word" on October 31, 2025, while criticizing the council's speech restrictions, stating the council was "afraid of the word ‘c–t.’" She later added, "Kind of insane how you’re more offended by bad words than police brutalizing citizens and journalists in the streets." The advocacy groups claim her remarks were on topic, within her allotted time, and did not disrupt the meeting.
Despite this, Councilmember Heather Hutt objected to the language, and then-presiding Councilmember Bob Blumenfield warned Segarra-Bohlinger. On December 3, 2025, Segarra-Bohlinger was ejected from a meeting and barred from further sessions that day after using the prohibited word again while criticizing the policy.
FIRE staff attorney Zachary Silver and First Amendment Coalition legal director David Loy argue in their letter that the rule violates the First Amendment and California's Brown Act by discriminating based on viewpoint, imposing unreasonable restrictions on public comment, and enabling officials to remove speakers whose remarks do not actually disrupt proceedings. The groups are urging the city to abandon the ban and its enforcement mechanisms before litigation becomes necessary.
Harris-Dawson has suggested that the current ban is a preliminary step, indicating a desire to address more terms in the future and expressing eagerness to "get in front of a judge."