A La Center house at the center of a controversy over free speech protections is no longer the eyesore that infuriated residents and the city council.
The house, which is owned by Donald Soehl, had large hand-painted swastikas on the exterior of the house and a Reichskriegsflagge, a Nazi Germany World War II flag. According to several neighbors, family members intervened and painted over the swastikas and removed the flag.
The La Center City Council also issued a proclamation in support of Jewish American Heritage Month at its April 26 meeting in response to the Nazi symbols.
“The city of La Center and city officials stand united against all forms of racism, bigotry, prejudice, and hate, including anti-Semitism and Nazism. The display of the swastika and other Nazi symbolism is abhorrent and goes against everything that the city of La Center stands for. Hate and anti-Semitism have no place in La Center,” city officials said in a press release.
La Center resident Emily Hancock brought the issue before the council in late March, suggesting the hand-painted swastikas violated city code regarding graffiti. Hancock said allowing the graffiti to remain would make current residents, and possibly anyone considering moving to La Center, question whether the city was a safe and welcoming place to live.
“Hate and antisemitism and white supremacy should have no place in La Center,” Hancock told the council.
Councilor Sean Boyle said the council in no way supports the message behind these kinds of hate symbols. In an interview Tuesday, Boyle said he doesn’t want anyone to think the city is a welcoming place for hate speech.
“Nobody on this council is in alliance with anything antisemitic,” Boyle said.
Boyle said while he agreed with much of what Hancock said during the council meeting, he noted there was little the city could legally do to intervene.
“Our attorney brought up that there is case law that supports the First Amendment right. Really, the city’s hands are tied,” Boyle said.
At the March council meeting, city attorney Bronson Potter said the council would have to carefully consider any actions it took to force the removal of the graffiti.
“Why are we doing this, why are we taking this action? It’s clearly content driven. It’s ‘We don’t like the message.’ … You’re just going to be setting yourself up for a civil lawsuit liability,” Potter told the council.
When issuing the proclamation, city officials said they recognize and respect an individual’s First Amendment rights to free speech, even if they disagree with the message of that speech.
“The city cannot and will not regulate speech solely based on its content,” the release said.
