Latest news with #Harris-Dawson
USA Today
5 days ago
- Politics
- USA Today
LA banned the N and C words from council meetings. Does the First Amendment allow that?
The council called it a 'narrowly focused rule' to curb ongoing disruptions during its meetings. But some First Amendment groups are concerned it will put the city on a slippery slope. As deadly wildfires raged across Southern California in January, a Los Angeles city official lamented to the city council and others how they were forced to listen to hateful, vulgar language from some members of the public. He thanked the audience for their patience in listening to one man's tirade in which he yelled "burn, Palisades, burn!" and used the N-word to describe council members. It was far from an isolated incident. A small group of people have repeatedly showed up to comment at the council meetings, spewing the N-word and C-word while ranting about everything from the city's homeless crisis to mask-wearing and the 2028 Olympics. Council members finally had enough. In late July, they passed a motion banning the public from using those two words during council meetings, despite warnings from First Amendment groups that the move could put the city on a slippery slope toward unconstitutional censorship. Already, the ban is getting put to the test. Just two days after the council passed the new rule, a man used the N-word three times in less than 10 seconds during his three minutes of speaking time. Council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson asked for the clerk to pause his time. 'Speaker, you have used the N-word, which is a violation of Council Rule 7,' Harris-Dawson said. 'This is your only warning that this word and any of its variations described in Council Rule 7 may not be used again in this council meeting, any future council meeting or future council committee meetings.' If the man continued to use the term, Harris-Dawson said, he would risk forfeiting the rest of his speaking time and being removed from the meeting. The council's motion calls the terms the 'most frequently used offensive and injurious epithets' at city council meetings. It said such words are 'inherently harmful,' citing the U.S. Supreme Court's 1942 decision in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. The ruling said some terms 'by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.' Such 'fighting words,' the court found, are not protected by the First Amendment. That's the argument city officials are making to justify the ban. These aren't ordinary words, city officials say. Under the new rule, a speaker who uses the term will first receive a verbal warning. If they use it again, the presiding officer will again tell them they cannot use such language and indicate that the need to reissue the warning has disrupted the meeting, therefore allowing the council to cut off the speaker. The speaker may also be removed from the proceedings and banned from future meetings, according to the motion. It specifies that violations of the rule would not invoke criminal or financial penalties. 'The cost is too high,' First Amendment group says Free speech groups have raised concerns about the rule and its First Amendment implications. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), urged the council not to adopt the measure, saying in an April 29 letter the rule would 'implement an unconstitutional solution when better alternatives that do not infringe on the speech rights of your constituents are available.' Likewise, the First Amendment Coalition, a nonprofit organization that focuses on First Amendment issues in California, wrote a similarly worded letter to the council raising concerns. The group said it "understands and sympathizes" with the city over the words and their impact on the community. Still, the group said the rule violates the First Amendment and opens the city up to lawsuits. "As with other ill-fated attempts to silence offensive speech, that result would amplify the objectionable message and allow those who utter it to claim victory as defenders of free speech," the group wrote. "Also, the first victim of censorship is rarely the last, and attempts at restricting offensive speech often lead to censorship of those they are intended to protect." But the council's motion, which was presented in March and passed on July 30, argued that action was necessary because the terms 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, the motion said. It acknowledged that the council 'faces competing duties' in being obligated to hear from the public and give them opportunities to exercise their First Amendment rights while still protecting council members and others in attendance at the meetings. 'It is understandable, given the rough and tumble of city council hearings why governments would want rules of decorum,' said Ben Wizner, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Speech, Privacy and Technology Project. 'The problem is, the cost is too high, and it gives them too much authority to suppress and censor opposing views.' But a spokesperson for Harris-Dawson said the measure was not meant to suppress free speech. 'This is not a ban on offensive speech in general, nor does it limit the public's right to criticize, protest, or speak passionately,' the spokesperson said. 'Instead, it draws a line at language that, by consistent and documented use, has disrupted the Council's ability to conduct public business and discouraged public participation.' Los Angeles City Council meetings compared to 'Jerry Springer' Harris-Dawson's spokesperson described the ban as a 'narrowly focused rule' meant to prevent disruptions and maintain a civil environment. 'These slurs are not being restricted because of the viewpoints they may express, but because they have repeatedly incited disruption, escalated tensions and silenced the participation of others,' the spokesperson said. Right before council meeting broadcasts begin, a disclaimer warns that the 'following content may contain offensive language not suitable for some audiences' and that 'viewer discretion is advised.' 'It's almost like you're about to watch an episode of 'Jerry Springer,'' said Stephanie Jablonsky, FIRE's senior program counsel for public advocacy. During the council's July 30 meeting, a member of the public repeatedly used both terms and said the council could make him a 'millionaire' after he sues on free speech grounds. The council voted in 2014 to settle a free speech lawsuit brought by a man who was kicked out of a city commission meeting for wearing a Ku Klux Klan hood and shirt emblazoned with the N-word. Another man used the N-word several times in condemning the rule, along with a call to 'send the Jews back to Israel' and a reference to President Donald Trump's administration being 'the only America of constitutional betterment.' Kathy Schreiner, the president of the Van Nuys Neighborhood Council, which urged the city council to pass the measure, said her group's meetings have also been disrupted by such language. Schreiner said she has "frequently been called the C-word" since starting her position in December 2022. The council's former president, Michael Browning, was also 'frequently' called the N-word in meetings throughout his two-year tenure, she wrote. 'The (Van Nuys Neighborhood Council) has an unusually small attendance from the public at our meetings, and we know that one major reason is how difficult it is to sit through meetings where so many vulgar and nasty public comments are made,' Schreiner said. She requested the city council 'explore whether there is some way you could help prohibit the use of these epithets at all Neighborhood Council Board and Committee meetings.' The Palms Neighborhood Council also asked for the city council to pass the ban and 'apply the same changes to Neighborhood Council meetings.' Both city and neighborhood council meetings attract people who are 'able to disrupt discussions for sport' using 'vile language and pointless hate speech,' the statement read. 'Transparency in government is crucial, and stakeholders must be allowed to criticize the work of government without fear of reprisal,' the statement went on to say. 'But this process is actually degraded and undermined when individuals with no productive aims destroy the public dialogue and engagement with hate speech targeted only at blowing up the process.' City says rule about preserving access, 'not censoring ideas' But the First Amendment 'exists for this exact reason,' Jablonsky said. The remedy, in her view, is to 'punish the disruption' and not the speaker. Though certain terms may be offensive and harmful to many people, Jablonsky said it's vital to resist any efforts to ban words. 'If we don't, we are setting a dangerous precedent for government to regulate what we say,' she said. 'Any inch they are given will absolutely get used.' Wizner agreed, saying the 'only speech that needs constitutional protection is speech that deeply offends." The ACLU's 2024 article, 'Defending Speech We Hate,' noted that the organization has defended the free speech rights of numerous groups it strongly disagrees with – among them neo-Nazis, white supremacists and the National Rifle Association. 'Our view is if the First Amendment doesn't protect the NRA in New York, it doesn't protect the ACLU in Texas,' Wizner said. But the council has maintained that its actions are both legal and necessary to address terms that have 'repeatedly incited disruption, escalated tensions and silenced the participation of others' at meetings. 'Just like courtrooms and school board meetings, Council Chambers are limited public forums where reasonable time, place, and manner rules apply,' Harris-Dawson's spokesperson said. 'This motion is about preserving access and safety for everyone, not censoring ideas, but safeguarding the ability of all residents to speak and be heard without intimidation or verbal abuse.' BrieAnna Frank is a First Amendment Reporting Fellow at USA TODAY. Reach her at bjfrank@ USA TODAY's coverage of First Amendment issues is funded through a collaboration between the Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners. Funders do not provide editorial input.
Yahoo
23-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
"No responsive records" of communications from active mayor during Palisades Fire, says L.A. City
On May 19th, the City of Los Angeles responded to KTLA's request for public records of the officials involved in the city's response to the Palisades fire by closing the case, saying there were 'no responsive records matching [the] search parameters.'As permitted in the California Public Records Act of 1968, KTLA had been pursuing records of communication from key officials relating to the fires just weeks after they occurred. One of the officials targeted was Los Angeles City Councilmember Marqueece Harris-Dawson, the acting mayor of the city while Mayor Karen Bass was out of the country on a visit to Ghana. The parameters established by KTLA's initial request were intentionally broad so as to cover any relevant information to the city's wildfire crisis response, seeking 'ANY digital communications (including email/ text/ WhatsApp/ or other) originating FROM or TO Harris-Dawson over a period of days'. When the news outlet failed to receive a response, they resubmitted the request on March 11th. The city got back to them 10 days later, saying it had 'records that match [KTLA's] request and will… provide them no later than May 21, 2025.' This runs directly counter to the most recent update from Harris-Dawson's office, claiming the case would be closed because there were no relevant records. In their response to KTLA, the Councilmember's office did not explain the discrepancy between its first response, saying the documents existed, and its most recent update, saying they did not. The city's response to the public records request, already longer than the standard turnaround time for such a request, has raised concerns about the transparency of the city government on social media. Defense lawyer and legal expert Allison Triesl states to KTLA: 'I can think of nothing more central to the conduct of the people's business than knowing why Los Angeles County was ill-prepared to combat one of the greatest natural disasters in this State's history.'
Yahoo
20-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
L.A. city says no digital communications exist for acting mayor during the Palisades Fire
Months after the wildfires scorched a path of destruction through several Los Angeles County communities, the city of L.A. says no digital communications exist for the acting mayor during a critical period of the Palisades Fire. KTLA has been pursuing public records requests for key officials involved in both fire incidents, from the initial response to the aftermath, with some requests facing significant delays. One outstanding request from KTLA targeted Los Angeles City Councilmember Marqueece Harris-Dawson, who served as acting mayor during the Palisades Fire while Mayor Karen Bass was out of the country. KTLA had sought communications from Harris-Dawson to gain insight into his response during those critical hours. Deleted messages, disappearing chats, and a firestorm of L.A. controversy The initial request, filed weeks after the fires, sought 'ANY digital communications (including email/ text/ WhatsApp/ or other) originating FROM or TO Harris-Dawson over a period of days' related to the Palisades Fire, the Los Angeles Fire Department (LAFD), the mayor, or former LAFD Chief Kristin Crowley. The request was intentionally broad to encompass various topics an acting mayor might address during a wildfire crisis. On March 11, KTLA resubmitted the request after receiving no response. The office stated the request was too complex for a 10-day turnaround and required an additional 14 days, with a new response date of March 22. On March 21, KTLA was informed, 'We have records that match your request and will review them and provide them no later than May 21, 2025.' KTLA expressed concern about the additional two months needed and was told the office was processing a 'higher than normal amount' of public records requests. However, on May 19, months after the fires, KTLA received a one-sentence email from the City Council member's office stating, 'We have reviewed your search criteria and have found no responsive records matching your search parameters. This request is closed.' This means no emails, texts, or other digital communications from Harris-Dawson related to the Palisades Fire, the LAFD, the mayor, or the former fire chief were provided for the requested period. Harris-Dawson's office did not explain why they initially stated on March 21 that matching documents existed, only to later claim no responsive records were found. KTLA is not alone in this experience. The Los Angeles Times received a similar response from Harris-Dawson's office regarding a separate request related to the wildfires, as reported in their article, 'How much did Bass talk to her acting mayor while she was in Ghana?' KTLA continues to pursue requests with other agencies, including the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) and the Los Angeles County Office of Emergency Management. Legal expert Alison Triessl commented on the public records process and KTLA's efforts, stating, 'Since its inception in 1968, The California Public Records Act was enacted to promote public access to public records. As the Act clearly states, 'access to information concerning the conduct of the people's business is a fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state.' I can think of nothing more central to the conduct of the people's business than knowing why Los Angeles County was ill-prepared to combat one of the greatest natural disasters in this State's history.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
16-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
L.A. council members were told a vote could violate public meeting law. They voted anyway
When Los Angeles City Council members took up a plan to hike the wages of tourism workers this week, they received some carefully worded advice from city lawyers: Don't vote on this yet. Senior Assistant City Atty. Michael J. Dundas advised them on Wednesday — deep into their meeting — that his office had not yet conducted a final legal review of the flurry of last-minute changes they requested earlier in the day. Dundas recommended that the council delay its vote for two days to comply with the Ralph M. Brown Act, the state's open meeting law. "We advise that the posted agenda for today's meeting provides insufficient notice under the Brown Act for first consideration and adoption of an ordinance to increase the wages and health benefits for hotel and airport workers," Dundas wrote. The council pressed ahead anyway, voting 12-3 to increase the minimum wage of those workers to $30 per hour by 2028, despite objections from business groups, hotel owners and airport businesses. Read more: L.A. council backs $30 minimum wage for hotels, despite warnings from tourism industry Then, on Friday, the council conducted a do-over vote, taking up the rewritten wage measure at a special noon meeting — one called only the day before. The result was the same, with the measure passing again, 12-3. Some in the hotel industry questioned why Council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson, who runs the meetings, insisted on moving forward Wednesday, even after the lawyers' warning. Jackie Filla, president and chief executive of the Hotel Assn. of Los Angeles, said the decision to proceed Wednesday gave a political boost to Unite Here Local 11, which represents hotel workers. The union had already scheduled an election for Thursday for its members to vote on whether to increase their dues. By approving the $30 per hour minimum wage on Wednesday, the council gave the union a potent selling point for the proposed dues increase, Filla said. "It looks like it was in Unite Here's financial interest to have that timing," she said. Councilmember Monica Rodriguez, who opposed the wage increases, was more blunt. "It was clear that Marqueece intended to be as helpful as possible" to Unite Here Local 11, "even if it meant violating the Brown Act," she said. Harris-Dawson spokesperson Rhonda Mitchell declined to say why her boss pushed for a wage vote on Wednesday after receiving the legal advice about the Brown Act. That law requires local governments to take additional public comment if a legislative proposal has changed substantially during a meeting. Mitchell, in a text message, said Harris-Dawson scheduled the new wage vote for Friday because of a mistake by city lawyers. "The item was re-agendized because of a clerical error on the City Attorney's part — and this is the correction," she said. Mitchell did not provide details on the error. However, the wording on the two meeting agendas is indeed different. Read more: Faced with a $30 minimum wage, hotel investors start looking outside L.A. Wednesday's agenda called for the council to ask city lawyers to "prepare and present" amendments to the wage laws. Friday's agenda called for the council to "present and adopt" the proposed changes. Maria Hernandez, a spokesperson for Unite Here Local 11, said in an email that her union does not control the City Council's schedule. The union's vote on higher dues involved not just its L.A. members but also thousands of workers in Orange County and Arizona, Hernandez said. "The timing of LA City Council votes is not up to us (sadly!) — in fact we were expecting a vote more than a year ago — nor would the precise timing be salient to our members," she said. Hernandez said Unite Here Local 11 members voted "overwhelmingly" on Thursday to increase their dues, allowing the union to double the size of its strike fund and pay for "an army of organizers" for the next round of labor talks. She did not disclose the size of the dues increase. Dundas' memo, written on behalf of City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto, was submitted late in Wednesday's deliberations, after council members requested a number of changes to the minimum wage ordinance. At one point, they took a recess so their lawyers could work on the changes. By the time the lawyers emerged with the new language, Dundas' memo was pinned to the public bulletin board in the council chamber, where spectators quickly snapped screenshots. Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Los Angeles Times
16-05-2025
- Business
- Los Angeles Times
L.A. council members were told a vote could violate public meeting law. They voted anyway
When Los Angeles City Council members took up a plan to hike the wages of tourism workers this week, they received some carefully worded advice from city lawyers: Don't vote on this yet. Senior Assistant City Atty. Michael J. Dundas advised them on Wednesday — deep into their meeting — that his office had not yet conducted a final legal review of the flurry of last-minute changes they requested earlier in the day. Dundas recommended that the council delay its vote for two days to comply with the Ralph M. Brown Act, the state's open meeting law. 'We advise that the posted agenda for today's meeting provides insufficient notice under the Brown Act for first consideration and adoption of an ordinance to increase the wages and health benefits for hotel and airport workers,' Dundas wrote. The council pressed ahead anyway, voting 12-3 to increase the minimum wage of those workers to $30 per hour by 2028, despite objections from business groups, hotel owners and airport businesses. Then, on Friday, the council conducted a do-over vote, taking up the rewritten wage measure at a special noon meeting — one called only the day before. The result was the same, with the measure passing again, 12-3. Some in the hotel industry questioned why Council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson, who runs the meetings, insisted on moving forward Wednesday, even after the lawyers' warning. Jackie Filla, president and chief executive of the Hotel Assn. of Los Angeles, said the decision to proceed Wednesday gave a political boost to Unite Here Local 11, which represents hotel workers. The union had already scheduled an election for Thursday for its members to vote on whether to increase their dues. By approving the $30 per hour minimum wage on Wednesday, the council gave the union a potent selling point for the proposed dues increase, Filla said. 'It looks like it was in Unite Here's financial interest to have that timing,' she said. Councilmember Monica Rodriguez, who opposed the wage increases, was more blunt. 'It was clear that Marqueece intended to be as helpful as possible' to Unite Here Local 11, 'even if it meant violating the Brown Act,' she said. Harris-Dawson spokesperson Rhonda Mitchell declined to say why her boss pushed for a wage vote on Wednesday after receiving the legal advice about the Brown Act. That law requires local governments to take additional public comment if a legislative proposal has changed substantially during a meeting. Mitchell, in a text message, said Harris-Dawson scheduled the new wage vote for Friday because of a mistake by city lawyers. 'The item was re-agendized because of a clerical error on the City Attorney's part — and this is the correction,' she said. Mitchell did not provide details on the error. However, the wording on the two meeting agendas is indeed different. Wednesday's agenda called for the council to ask city lawyers to 'prepare and present' amendments to the wage laws. Friday's agenda called for the council to 'present and adopt' the proposed changes. Maria Hernandez, a spokesperson for Unite Here Local 11, said in an email that her union does not control the City Council's schedule. The union's vote on higher dues involved not just its L.A. members but also thousands of workers in Orange County and Arizona, Hernandez said. 'The timing of LA City Council votes is not up to us (sadly!) — in fact we were expecting a vote more than a year ago — nor would the precise timing be salient to our members,' she said. Hernandez said Unite Here Local 11 members voted 'overwhelmingly' on Thursday to increase their dues, allowing the union to double the size of its strike fund and pay for 'an army of organizers' for the next round of labor talks. She did not disclose the size of the dues increase. Dundas' memo, written on behalf of City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto, was submitted late in Wednesday's deliberations, after council members requested a number of changes to the minimum wage ordinance. At one point, they took a recess so their lawyers could work on the changes. By the time the lawyers emerged with the new language, Dundas' memo was pinned to the public bulletin board in the council chamber, where spectators quickly snapped screenshots.
