The recent editorial (“Los Angeles city attorney to press: drop dead,” Nov. 6) attacking me with inflammatory rhetoric — accusing me of “hating the press” and wanting journalists “shot by the police”— is both wrong and a dangerous distortion that undermines the very public safety it pretends to champion.
Hyperbolic claims such as these do nothing to advance public information, much less thoughtful discourse on civil liberties or law enforcement. Instead, they fan the flames of division in a city already grappling with complex challenges. My office’s defense of the city and its departments as Los Angeles city attorney is my charter responsibility and reflects my steadfast dedication to safeguarding every Angeleno, protesters, journalists, innocent bystanders and our police officers and city employees alike. I have no animus toward the media or anyone else. My office’s appeal of a federal judge’s order is a measured, obligatory step rooted in common sense to protect everyone.
Let me address the case at hand head-on. The lawsuit arose from this summer’s protests against ICE raids in downtown Los Angeles, where tensions ran high amid allegations of LAPD officers using crowd control munitions inappropriately, including against journalists. I have never endorsed and in fact strongly oppose harming reporters or violating policies.
I unequivocally support the First Amendment rights of the public to peaceful assembly and speech as well as the First Amendment’s protections for freedom of the press as guaranteed under the U.S. and California constitutions. My office has worked with the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) to provide training on the robust state law protections for the press and its ability to cover protests and other law enforcement activities. The preliminary injunction most recently issued by the Central District Court of California, however, more broadly binds the LAPD and appears to make the LAPD responsible for the conduct of other law enforcement agencies, which may be called upon as needed under mutual aid protocols.
The appeal focuses on key flaws in the ruling: for example, anyone who self-identifies as “press” can position themselves dangerously close to or behind police lines, potentially escalating risks for everyone involved.
My office is seeking clarification about the scope of certain of the mandates in the preliminary injunction that create the ongoing risk that LAPD officers and the city could face contempt for lawful actions taken in good faith to protect the residents of our city or for the actions of other agencies. Our office remains committed to ensuring the public safety of Angelenos and that our law enforcement has the ability and the tools to carry out its core functions.
This isn’t about punishing journalists or anyone else, but preventing chaos that could endanger protesters exercising their rights, officers trying to maintain order and legitimate press members covering the story. Dismissing this as “anti-press bias” or claiming that I or the city seek “brutal punishment” for anyone ignores the reality: I was duty-bound to appeal to protect the broader public interest, ensuring that safeguards like proper credentialing of journalists are appropriate to prevent harm without stifling free expression.
I have repeatedly voiced solidarity with, and taken action to support, those fighting for immigrant rights, police reform and social justice, recognizing that Los Angeles thrives when all of our voices are heard without fear. However, supporting these issues doesn’t mean turning a blind eye to the destruction that can hijack noble movements. Gatherings co-opted by bad actors lead to looted businesses, injured innocents and even harm to the very protesters they claim to represent. This includes police officers who follow the rules and risk their lives daily to keep everyone safe.
The robust defense of First Amendment rights includes measures to prevent bad actors from causing dangerous escalation, chaos and harm. The city and its police department must comply with state and constitutional protections for the press, for protesters and for all of our residents while keeping our employees and sworn officers safe. Their safety requires clear and consistent policies that enable them to call for mutual aid as needed. Subjecting the LAPD and the city to varying legal standards under different injunctions undermines public safety for all of us.
In the end, Los Angeles doesn’t have to sacrifice public safety to fight for just causes.
Hydee Feldstein Soto is Los Angeles city attorney.