Two national free-speech organizations have given the Los Angeles City Council 30 days to repeal a rule that bars the use of the N-word and the C-word during public comment, and they say they are ready to sue if city leaders refuse. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression and the First Amendment Coalition delivered a joint demand letter on behalf of a frequent public commenter who was removed under the policy, turning what started as a decorum tweak into a constitutional fight over how City Hall can police language in a public forum.
According to the Los Angeles Daily News, the letter, signed by First Amendment Coalition attorney David Loy and Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression lawyer Zachary Silver, demands an "unconditional commitment" that the council will stop removing or threatening to remove speakers for their language when there is no actual disruption. The groups ask the council to repeal what they label the "unconstitutional word ban and exclusion provisions" and say they intend to represent Sherman Oaks Neighborhood Council member Stacey Segarra-Bohlinger. They set a 30-day deadline and warn they will move to litigation if the rule is not rescinded.
What the rule says
The restriction was added to Council Rule 7 in the summer of 2025 and explicitly prohibits public speakers from uttering the spelled-out N-word or C-word, or any variation of those epithets. Under the rule, officials may issue a first warning, and repeated use can lead to removal from the meeting. The official Council File for CF 16-1104-S3 records the adoption on July 30, 2025 and shows the motion moving through committee to a final vote. Local reporting at the time captured council leaders defending the change as a narrow response to repeated disruptions and intimidation aimed at council members and others in the chamber.
How the policy has played out
The demand letter cites at least one high-profile ejection under the rule. Segarra-Bohlinger was paused and later removed after she used the C-word during a December meeting, an episode the organizations say illustrates how broadly the ban operates in practice. She has publicly criticized the policy and told USA TODAY that the dispute "isn't about these words in particular" and that letting the council decide which words are allowed invites broader censorship. The groups argue the policy has been enforced in ways that permit removal without any showing of actual disruption to the council’s business.
Legal fight ahead
The letter contends that the rule discriminates based on viewpoint and allows people to be excluded from meetings without the kind of disruption that California law permits as a basis for removal. The First Amendment Coalition has previously urged the council not to adopt a ban on particular epithets, warning that government speech restrictions of this kind risk amplifying the very messages officials say they hope to tamp down. Legal scholars and local reporters have noted the tension between the Supreme Court’s narrow "fighting words" doctrine and the steep legal hurdles governments face when restricting speech in designated public forums such as council meetings.
What comes next
The demand letter, addressed to Council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson and City Attorney Hydee Feldstein Soto, gives the council 30 days to rescind the policy or face litigation, according to reporting. The council did not immediately respond to requests for comment, per local coverage. If the city holds its ground, the clash is expected to move quickly into federal court, setting up a high-stakes test of how municipal decorum rules intersect with the First Amendment.
