SONC Opposes Council Rules Change, Censorship

Posted on 04/15/2025

While we do not condone the use of any slurs or epithets during council meetings or at any time,
we consider this attempt by City Council to ban members of the public from using specific words
during public comment period a blatant attack on free speech as guaranteed by the 1st
Amendment of the United States Constitution.

The language used in the court case cited as precedent in this council file [CHAPLINSKY V.
NEW HAMPSHIRE, 315 U.S. 568 (1942)] which was directed at a U.S. Marshal arresting
Chaplinsky was: "You are a goddamned racketeer" and "a damned fascist".

In the news outlet Westside Current, Council President Harris-Dawson is quoted as saying he
“expects his colleagues to add additional language”, and “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”
Indicating that the two epithets outlined in the council file are just the starting point to this attempt
at dictating what the public can and cannot say during public comment period at City Council
meetings.

The Council President also stated that he’s “Eager to get in front of a judge” indicating that he
anticipates lawsuits will be filed against the city for violation of free speech as guaranteed by the
1st Amendment. In the case MICHAEL HUNT V. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, No. 12-55709 (9th
Cir. 2013) the City of Los Angeles paid $215,000 to settle with the plaintiff. An L.A. Times article
about the case published June 12, 2014 states:

“Councilman Bernard C. Parks described the payment as a ‘business decision,’ arguing that
the city would have had to pay far more had the case gone to trial. A judge in a separate
federal case recently found that Los Angeles violated the free speech rights of two other men
who were repeatedly ejected from council meetings.
“Although a jury awarded each man only $1 over that matter, the city still had to pay around
$600,000 in legal fees for that case, Parks said.”

Considering the significant liability costs the City of Los Angeles incurs every year, this is an
irresponsible misuse of power on the part of City Council that has potential to burden taxpayers
with costly litigation and/or settlement payouts.

We note that while the motion on this council file was introduced on March 21st, 2025 there are
several written comments submitted that are dated before that, as early as February 2025; and
many submitted after March 21st that are dated prior to March 21st in the document submitted as
comment. The pattern of early submissions raises concerns about coordinated messaging not
originating from independent community members.

We request Council Member Nithya Raman of District 4 remove her second on this motion. We
request this item be withdrawn from consideration; we strongly urge a NO vote if this item is
considered.

Files