President of the L.A. City Council (courtesy image)
There is an automatic physiological reaction when someone hears violent language and in today’s political climate, threats — real or perceived — are ever-present. Racial, gendered, and other universally offensive slurs have been weaponized against the very people trying to engage with their government.
Yet, LA City Hall’s Council Chambers remains one of the few public spaces that lacks civility, professional conduct, and basic decency. Individuals use this language because they have no well-formed opinions or political stance but still crave attention, and those who come to their defense are equally as ignorant.
While I was chairing a meeting, two women attempted to drown out the voice of a third individual who was repeatedly calling me n—-r. As they came to my defense, I was forced to have them removed from the meeting while the person who called me a n—-r got to stay. The women who came to voice their opinions went unheard. In similar public spaces, such as courtrooms, the use of n—-r would be considered unacceptable.
Recently, two individuals used the platform of public comment to hurl c—t and n—-r at councilmembers and city staff. Children from three local elementary schools were in the audience, and nearly 100 workers fighting for better wages sat in the audience waiting to voice their opinions.
On Denim Day, while survivors of sexual assault advocated for awareness and resources, public commenters once again hurled c—t at women elected officials, alongside other vile remarks. Nury Martinez, during her tenure as Council President, was called a c—t more times than I can count. Even women in positions of power are not shielded from misogynistic attacks.
Council meetings have even devolved into death threats. As Councilmember Bob Blumenfield was chairing a meeting, an individual interrupted to scream “I’m going to kill you and all your Jewish people.” Blumenfield had to get a restraining order, which should not occur in a functioning public forum.
As a governing body, we are called to make sure people have a right to engage with their electeds and that members of the council are productive and effective in their roles. On Friday, March 21, I will submit a motion with a number of my colleagues to limit the use of unnecessary epithets, which are used for injury, rather than to convey any particular viewpoint or information. The use of n—-r or c—t will result in a warning; a second offense will lead to removal from the meeting.
This motion does not infringe upon free speech. Courts have made it clear “expression, whether oral, written, or symbolized by conduct, is subject to reasonable time, place, or manner restrictions” (Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence). Only certain words that incite violence will be restricted and these limitations apply solely to council and committee meetings.
The Brown Act mandates that these discussions remain open to the public, but it does not guarantee unbridled speech. The Council Rules are clear about limiting disorderly behavior to ensure an effective meeting.
The repeated use of slurs has disrupted meetings, leading to fights, recesses, and removals. It has also reduced the number of people who wish to engage and participate in the process. This has taken a toll on stakeholders and members of the public attending in good faith along with city staff.
The city’s business is too important to be derailed by theatrics. We are in a homelessness crisis, public safety is front of mind, and major world events are on the horizon. Such focused restrictions are essential for maintaining order and ensuring public safety without undermining fundamental rights. It is long past time to make this space accessible to all.
