Free speech groups challenge LA ban on N-word, C-word

NATION<br>Freedom of Speech<br>Add Topic

Free speech groups demand LA repeal slur ban<br>The Los Angeles City Council says 'inherently harmful' words can be banned from meetings. Two free-speech groups disagree and are demanding a repeal of a ban on the words.<br>BrieAnna J. FrankUSA TODAY

Updated July 23, 2026, 10:34 a.m. ET<br>Hear this story

The Los Angeles City Council implemented a ban on the use of the N- and C-words during meetings in 2025, saying their use had disrupted the proceedings "on many occasions."<br>First Amendment groups urged the council not to adopt the measure, saying the council could take action to prevent meeting disruptions without imposing a potentially unconstitutional word ban.<br>The First Amendment Coalition and the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression said in a July 23 letter to the council that they would sue if the ban isn't lifted within 30 days.<br>Two civil liberties groups are demanding the Los Angeles City Council throw out its rule banning people from using the N-word and C-word during meetings, alleging in part that the prohibition violates the First Amendment.<br>The council implemented the ban in late July 2025. The motion the council passed putting in place the ban said action was necessary because the N-word and C-word, a crude term often used to disparage women, had been used and disrupted the meetings “on many occasions.” The sergeants-at-arms “prevented fights that were on the cusp of breaking out” on at least two occasions, it said.<br>But free-speech advocates warned the council the move could put the city on a slippery slope toward unconstitutional censorship. Among them were the First Amendment Coalition, which said the council’s efforts stood to “amplify the objectionable message and allow those who utter it to claim victory as defenders of free speech,” and the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, which said the rule would “implement an unconstitutional solution when better alternatives that do not infringe on the speech rights of your constituents are available.”

Both groups made similar arguments in a joint demand letter sent to the council on July 23. It alleged the word ban, as well as a policy barring people removed from meetings from attending future meetings for a fixed time period, violates both the First Amendment and the Ralph M. Brown Act, a California law that allows legislative bodies to remove meeting attendees based on “behavior that actually disrupts, disturbs, impedes or renders infeasible the orderly conduct” of the proceedings.<br>If the council does not repeal the ban within 30 days, the letter said the groups intended to sue over the matter.

“We’re not here to defend the merits of the words themselves, or really any words for that matter,” FIRE staff attorney Zach Silver told USA TODAY. “This case is not about these words – it's about the government’s right to ban really any word.”<br>The council did not immediately respond to USA TODAY’s request for comment.<br>Word bans '(open) the door to future censorship,' woman removed from council meeting says<br>The organizations are representing Los Angeles resident Stacey Segarra-Bohlinger, who serves on the Sherman Oaks Neighborhood Council. She’s used unorthodox means of expressing her opposition to the word ban, such as through saying "council is afraid of the word (C-word)" while singing to the tune of the “Ghostbusters” theme song during the council’s Halloween meeting.

After singing “I’m not calling anyone a (C-word)” to the tune of Adele’s “Someone Like You” at the council’s Dec. 3, 2025, meeting, Council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson asked the clerk to pause Segarra-Bohlinger's time and issued what he said would be her only warning for violating council rule 7.<br>As Harris-Dawson was speaking, Segarra-Bohlinger noted that she’d used the term several times before he stopped her and rejected the notion she was being disruptive. Harris-Dawson then called on a city attorney, who told Segarra-Bohlinger it was “not your opportunity to speak” given her paused time and said it was “disruptive to interrupt the council president or any council member while they’re speaking.”<br>Harris-Dawson then said Segarra-Bohlinger had one second remaining of her allotted time, to which she responded with the C-word.<br>“You are dismissed from this meeting and all future meetings today subject to rule 7 and rule 12,” Harris-Dawson said, a reference to both the word ban and the council’s decorum rules. “We’ll look forward to seeing you next week.”

Segarra-Bohlinger said the conflict “isn’t about these words in particular” in a statement provided to USA TODAY.<br>“This is about the right of the public to speak freely without constraints – no matter how offensive or objectionable the government may find the feedback,” she said. “Allowing the council to impose rules on which words are OK is a bad idea that opens the door to future censorship.”

Council says certain words...