LA City Council Wants to Censor Slurs at Public Meetings — But Where Does Traci Park Stand?

LA City Council is advancing a motion to censor the use of the N-word, C-word, and other slurs during public comment at City Hall. The move comes in response to recent outbursts of racist and misogynistic language during council meetings, prompting members to explore ways to maintain decorum while balancing First Amendment protections.

But while most councilmembers are eager to signal their opposition to hate speech, there's one councilmember whose record raises uncomfortable questions: Traci Park.

Before her election, Park famously defended the City of Anaheim in a workplace harassment case that involved repeated use of the N-word against an African American employee. In Harrell v. City of Anaheim (2021), Park represented the city and its deputy public works director, who was accused of using the slur in front of a Black subordinate on multiple occasions, along with other racist remarks and humiliations. The employee alleged he was fired in retaliation for complaining.

Park, as the city's attorney, argued to dismiss the harassment claims, effectively taking the position that such language did not constitute actionable workplace harassment. The court rejected that argument and allowed the case to proceed, recognizing the severity of the allegations.

Now, as the Council considers whether to censor the same slur from public comment, Park’s silence is deafening. If she supports the motion, she must reckon with her own record of excusing racist language when it was politically or professionally convenient. If she opposes it, she aligns herself with those who see no issue in allowing hate speech to persist in civic spaces.

The motion has also drawn serious pushback from free speech advocates. Organizations like the First Amendment Coalition, ACLU of Southern California, and the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) have warned the Council that this policy would be a clear violation of the First Amendment. In formal public comments, these groups pointed out that offensive language, while reprehensible, is still constitutionally protected speech—especially in a public forum like a City Council meeting.

FIRE specifically noted that banning specific words without regard to context constitutes "unconstitutional content-based discrimination." They cautioned that the Council's role is not to police speech based on emotional impact, and that vague bans on “offensive” language risk chilling legitimate political discourse. Even the most odious slurs, they argue, must be confronted through counterspeech, not censorship.

This creates an awkward tension. Councilmembers want to be seen taking a stand against hate, but they risk trampling over free speech rights in the process. Park, an attorney by trade, surely understands these constitutional concerns. The question is whether her political instincts—or her personal record—will dictate her position.

Traci Park can’t dodge this one. Voters deserve to know: Will she stand for free speech, or is she only interested in controlling the narrative when it suits her?