Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Civic Speech Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council delays vote on proposed rule limiting hateful slurs after hours of public comment
Summary
Los Angeles City Council members heard more than an hour of public testimony on a proposal to bar hateful slurs from public comment; the council president said formal approval would be postponed at least one week for further consideration.
The Los Angeles City Council paused action Tuesday on a proposed change to its rules that would prohibit use of certain hateful slurs during public comment, saying formal approval would be delayed at least one week.
Supporters — including parents, educators and youth who spoke at length during the public-comment period — urged the council to adopt a rule they said would protect students and other visitors from being intimidated or dehumanized in the chamber. "No deben ser expuesto a comentarios racistas y odiosos," said Wendy Salvador, identifying herself as a parent from South Los Angeles. Several young people and teachers said the rule would make the council chamber a safer and more welcoming site for civic participation.
The proposal, discussed as an amendment to the council rules (referenced in the meeting as "rule 77"), drew sustained testimony from community members and representatives of schools and neighborhood groups who said racially hateful language has discouraged young people from attending meetings. It also prompted comments from speakers who cautioned that such a rule could raise First Amendment concerns and expose the city to litigation.
A delegate speaking for a neighborhood council noted those legal risks, citing state and federal legal standards and the city's history of litigation over restrictions on speech in public meetings. At the meeting's close, the presiding officer said the council would not take final action on the rule that day and that "the approval of the rule will have to wait at least one week," giving members time to review language and legal analysis.
The discussion occurred primarily during the public-comment period and during early consideration of the agenda item. Speakers who urged adoption included educators and school leaders who said students had been deterred from attending by offensive language used at prior meetings; opponents included representatives of neighborhood councils and at least one commenter who argued the proposed rule could violate constitutional protections and expose the city to legal liability.
No formal vote on the rule was recorded in the transcript segment for the session; council staff and members said the item would return for further consideration after council members have additional time to review proposed language and legal advice.
The council did not adopt or reject the proposed rule at the meeting; instead members deferred final action and left the matter for a future session.
Forward-looking notes: The item will return to the council for potential further amendment and a formal vote after staff circulate legal analysis and revised rule language.
