The Beverly Hills City Council began discussions on a potential ordinance that would establish “Free Speech Spaces” at events sponsored by the city. The need for this potential ordinance was spurred by recent complaints from residents who have been disturbed by those wanting to get a message across at city-sponsored events.

Several council members noted the distraction that this kind of activity causes at the city’s Study Session Tuesday but acknowledged the importance of allowing people the rights they are entitled under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, which prevents governments from prohibiting the free exercise of or impeding freedom of speech in any legal manner.

To minimize interruptions while also allowing members of the community to utilize their right to free speech, an ordinance to designate certain areas as “Free Speech Spaces” where people could engage in picketing and soliciting that is not normally allowed at events.

People engaging in activities in these Free Speech Spaces would be allowed to solicit individuals at the event, but reasonable restrictions on time, place, and manner of speech can be applied to these zones, according to a staff presentation. This includes bans on voice-amplifying tools like megaphones that could interrupt the event. 

Free Speech Spaces would vary in size based on the size of the event, and space would be allocated on a first-come, first-serve basis. As currently proposed, the zones would only be used by people once per month, with the only exception being if the space was empty when a person who had already come that month wanted to use the space again. 

Beverly Hills Farmers Market has rules in place that bar campaigning for or against any electoral candidate or ballot measure, campaigning for election to any public office, circulating an initiative or referendum petition, unauthorized solicitation, and commercial photography or videotaping, but people could potentially be allowed to partake in those particular actions in the free speech zone. Multiple city council members argued that it may have to approach these spaces at the Farmer’s Market differently than at other events because of these bans. 

Mayor Lester Friedman said that he supported the idea but only if the ordinance was entirely legal. He expressed his belief that the city should keep these voices quarantined in particular areas. However, he wanted this to be implemented gradually and said the goal of this ordinance should not be to solve all of their problems. 

Councilmember Craig Corman also expressed concerns about the legality of it as well, wondering exactly how the First Amendment interacted with such an ordinance. He expressed interest in discussion with City Attorney Laurence Wiener regarding the technical aspects of the ordinance to make him more comfortable with supporting an ordinance.

“We need to talk about specifics,” Corman said, “but in principle assuming it’s all legal, I would be in support.”

There are no local municipalities that have a similar ordinance in place, and research has yet to be done on the existence of similar ordinances in other areas. Corman and other council members asked staff to present data from such research when the item returns to the council at a currently unspecified date.

Vice Mayor Sharona Nazarian also raised concerns about the enforcement of the zone — the once-a-month restriction in particular. She wondered exactly how that would be enforced, as well as the staff hours that would be lost into the role of managing the once-a-month restriction.

Staff explained that there would be a protocol in place to identify and catalog those who use a Free Speech Space at these events, but this was not enough to quell concerns. Nazarian was not concerned with the protocol, but with the unruly residents that did not wish to comply with those rules.

“[When] someone doesn’t do what you said, that’s what we need to be preparing for,” Nazarian said.

Nazarian also raised concerns about the intersection between this kind of ordinance and the 1st Amendment, pointing out the potential for unforeseen issues as Friedman did earlier. Concerns with how religious expression would interact with a theoretical ordinance and the First Amendment.

The labor required to operate such a zone was a concern raised by several council members at the study session. The staff report with the item does not indicate any financial cost associated with implementing these spaces, but several council members believed that the staff labor that is required to operate these spaces with the restrictions being proposed would incur a cost that should be acknowledged.

City staff was directed to address the concerns regarding specifics, outside research, and the other legal aspects of a potential ordinance before the item returns to the council for further discussion.

Photo by  TheCrimsonRibbon on iStockphoto.com