LA Hate Flier Proposal Moves Forward

The Los Angeles City Council on Friday approved a proposal to examine how litter laws can be used to prohibit the dissemination of fliers that contain hate speech, with the motion calling specific attention to antisemitic literature.

The proposal comes amid worries about an increase in antisemitism as the Israel-Hamas war drags on.

“The perpetrators of this crime do so in the hope that it will harass and intimidate Jewish families, radicalize others or desensitize some to the messaging,” the motion states.

Councilmember Bob Blumenfield, who co-sponsored the motion with Councilmember Nithya Raman, said it is aimed at people who toss hate fliers on private — not public — property.

“When you cross that threshold and you start sending that hate into someone’s else’s sanctuary, onto their front step, that is no longer about your free speech,” he said. “That is about intimidating someone else.”

Blumenfield compared it to leaving a noose on the steps of a Black person’s home.

The motion asked the city attorney and Los Angeles Police Department to report back in a few months on “how the crime of littering in mass as a method to disseminate hate speech is currently addressed by the City.”

It also asked those agencies to look at ways to increase penalties that would make it a misdemeanor “for any person to litter with the intent to willfully injure, intimidate, interfere with, oppress, or threaten any other person based on their perceived characteristics.”

The Friday morning meeting was interrupted by pro-Palestinian protesters who said the motion was designed to silence their voices by conflating anti-Zionist sentiment with antisemitism.

“It's nothing more than this very targeted assault on a particular group of people for speaking out for the liberation of Palestinians,” said Hamid Khan, one of about 10 people who were escorted out of the meeting because of their protests.

First Amendment advocates have raised red flags over the motion, saying hate speech — absent a specific threat — is protected by the Constitution.

Blumenfield acknowledged as much.

“First Amendment issues are always complicated and we want to make sure that people can say whatever hateful things they want to say,” he said.

But, he added, “Surely if you send a hateful flier with the intent to intimidate someone, that is more than littering.”

The motion also sought to find a non-criminal approach to hate fliers. It asks the Civil and Human Rights and Equity Department to report to the council “on alternative solutions to preventing and addressing hate speech that is disseminated via mass flyering.”

The motion asks for reports back in 90 days.