The Los Angeles City Council today will consider a proposal to prohibit the use of a racial slur and an obscene word for a woman during council or committee meetings.

City Council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson introduced the motion, seconded by six of his colleagues. It was previously approved by the Rules, Elections and Intergovernmental Relations Committee.

The council and its various committees have been plagued by foul-mouthed gadflies in recent years. A deputy city attorney often explains that City Council members do not condone the remarks, but must allow them under the First Amendment.

But the city must also adhere to the Brown Act and the state constitution, which regulate open meetings for local government bodies.

“These duties come into conflict when some members of the public in their comments to council and its committees use certain offensive epithets,” the motion reads. “At their worst, these members of the public refer to Black members of the public, city staff and council members using the ‘N-word’ and to female members of the public, city staff, and council members using the ‘C-word.”‘

Council members contend individuals who use these offensive words are doing so with the aim of “offense and injury itself.”

In the motion, council members argue that they have a good case expanding their rules of decorum under what is known as Rule 7, which regulates public comment. The rule says that a speaker who goes off topic or disrupts a meeting would get a warning, followed by censure that could extend to other scheduled meetings for the day. Multiple violations can lead to a three-day ban or longer.

Council members claim they can take action, citing a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 1942, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire.

The landmark case established the “fighting words” doctrine, limiting the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech. It set a precedent for regulating speech that incites violence or provokes a breach of peace.

Meanwhile, in a letter to City Council, David Loy warned that the proposed rule cannot be justified on the grounds that members of the public might believe elected officials condone such offensive terms said during council and committee meetings.

Loy, legal director of the First Amendment Coalition, also provided several legal examples that could challenge the city’s position. The city could use or implement a disclaimer to reinforce its disagreement with offensive epithets.

“But the First Amendment prohibits the government from censoring speech because it disapproves of that speech,” Loy wrote in the letter. “FAC respectfully urges the City Council to reject the proposed rule.”