LOS ANGELES, CA – Los Angeles City Council’s Public Safety Committee chose to delay the controversial anti-protest motion during its meeting session on Tuesday. The proposed motion would seek to restrict “engaging in protest” within 100 feet of public facilities, religious institutions, and other designated “sensitive sites.” The committee chose to “continue” the motion, effectively delaying any decision on the issue for the time being.
The motion, proposed by Fifth District Councilwoman Katy Yaroslavsky, would list “religious institutions, healthcare facilities, educational facilities or community/public facilities” as “sensitive sites”, and direct the City Attorney, with the assistance of LAPD, to draft an ordinance making it a misdemeanor within 100 feet of a sensitive site to be “knowingly approaching another person within eight feet of such a facility without consent for the purpose of passing a leaflet or handbill, displaying a sign, engaging in protest, education or counseling in the public right-of-way.”
Yaroslavsky’s proposal was met with fierce opposition from LA residents who rallied at the city hall on Tuesday, arguing that the motion was not only an attempt to suppress pro-Palestine protests, but also likely to violate the First Amendment and restrict community engagement efforts such as voter registration and employment programs.
Others cautioned that the ordinance could be weaponized to suppress labor protests. One member of the public submitted a written public comment to the committee:
“I am a union member and staff member; despite being a graduate of SMC and CalState LA this is my first job with health insurance, my first salaried job, my first job with PTO… all of which has been essential in caring for my sick mom. Civil disobedience got me those “perks”; union demonstrations where multiple people were killed by the police are responsible for your weekends too. I’m sure you know this.”
Another member of the public questioned the timing of this motion, “the timing and unwritten intent of this motion is extremely apparent as peaceful student protests across the nation have called for a cease-fire in Gaza. Such a policy undermines the rich legacies of student protests and union labor organizing that have led to countless civil freedoms we now take for granted. This motion is anti-union and anti-first amendment”, before asking the committee to “stand by your most vulnerable residents, workers, students, and neighbors. Drop this motion immediately.”
Others empathized with the intent, but called for a different solution. One person wrote “I empathize with the desire to keep everyone safe, but criminalization by creating a comically large buffer zone is not a solution.”
Tuesdays motion was ultimately postponed, likely to have further discussions and resolve any issues before taking any action.
It’s unclear if the motion will return to the floor and what the final ordinance will look like if drafted by the City Attorney, but many residents anticipate potential legal challenges if the council decides to pass it.
“As a democratic voter in Los Angeles, I strongly believe in the right to protest and demonstration—this is how the gears of history have turned forward throughout the history of the united states. The law, if codified, will be challenged repeatedly (rightfully) and waste huge amounts of taxpayer dollars”, one resident wrote to the committee.
