A federal court has ruled that the city of San Diego violated the First Amendment rights of a local artist and busker. The ruling, issued Friday by U.S. District Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz, concluded that the since-repealed law was unconstitutionally vague and overly broad, chilling protected speech in violation of the Constitution.
The case was brought by William J. Dorsett, a self-described First Amendment activist and San Diego-based street performer, who was cited by a park ranger in June 2023 under San Diego Municipal Code § 56.27 after he called the ranger a "bully" while defending a fellow busker in Balboa Park. The law, which dated back to 1895, criminalized "offensive or disorderly conduct" and the use of "vulgar or indecent language" in public spaces.
Judge Moskowitz ruled that the law gave law enforcement officers "too much discretion" to determine what constituted prohibited speech, writing that it "chilled a substantial amount of free speech and was unconstitutionally overbroad." Citing longstanding Supreme Court precedent, the judge emphasized that the First Amendment protects even unpopular or offensive speech, especially when directed at public officials.
Dorsett's legal battle began when he was convicted at a bench trial without legal representation. On appeal, his conviction was reversed, with the court finding his comments were constitutionally protected. He then filed a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the ordinance itself. The city ultimately repealed the law earlier this year, but not before enforcing it against Dorsett and other individuals over the years.
The court granted summary judgment in favor of Dorsett under his Monell claim, holding the city liable for enforcing an unconstitutional policy. "This isn’t just a big win for me," Dorsett said in a statement. "It’s a big win for all San Diegans and for free speech in our city."
Dorsett’s attorney, Michele Akemi McKenzie of McKenzie Scott PC, said the decision underscores the dangers of using outdated municipal codes to suppress dissent. "The now-repealed, 130-year-old ordinance was used repeatedly by law enforcement in San Diego to punish constitutionally protected speech," she said. "The Constitution simply does not permit people to be punished for voicing their opinions even if - and especially when - those opinions are not popular with those who enforce the laws."
This case comes on the heels of another lawsuit brought by Dorsett and fellow performer Rogelio Flores challenging San Diego's sidewalk vending and busking restrictions, which remain pending in federal court. That suit claims the city's permitting scheme for artistic expression is vague, selectively enforced, and infringes on the rights of street artists.
The Dorsett ruling also echoes the controversy surrounding another now-repealed local ordinance - San Diego Municipal Code § 56.30, known as the "seditious language" law. Passed in 1918 and not repealed until 2020, the law criminalized any speech deemed seditious or likely to incite unrest. Though rarely used in recent decades, the statute had been disproportionately enforced against Black San Diegans and drew criticism from civil rights advocates, leading to its eventual repeal.
In both cases, legal experts say, San Diego's reluctance to proactively purge outdated and unconstitutional laws from its books has exposed the city to liability and undermined civil liberties. In court filings, Dorsett’s legal team noted that the city had known for years that it maintained archaic and potentially unlawful ordinances but failed to act.
Despite the repeal of § 56.27, Judge Moskowitz declined to issue a permanent injunction against its enforcement, finding the issue moot in light of the city’s legislative action. Nevertheless, the ruling affirms that citizens like Dorsett can effect meaningful change through litigation. "Dorsett’s lawsuit - the impetus for the repeal of Section 56.27 - shows that any citizen can change the law through litigation," Moskowitz wrote.
This ruling arrives amid heightened scrutiny of San Diego’s enforcement of outdated or overly broad laws targeting public expression - scrutiny that has intensified in the wake of another high-profile free speech case involving yoga instructors on the city’s beaches. In June, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a landmark decision in Hubbard v. City of San Diego, striking down the city’s ban on teaching yoga in shoreline parks and beaches as a violation of the First Amendment. The court held that instructing yoga, including the use of expressive movement and verbal guidance, constitutes protected speech - rejecting the city’s argument that such classes were commercial services rather than expressive conduct.
In both cases, federal courts found that San Diego municipal ordinances granted excessive discretion to law enforcement and city agencies to determine what kinds of speech or activity were permissible in public spaces. In Dorsett’s case, it was the use of the word "bullies" that triggered a citation under an archaic anti-vulgarity law. In the yoga matter, instructors like Steve Hubbard and Amy Baack were cited for holding peaceful, donation-based outdoor classes. The courts in each instance emphasized the chilling effect such enforcement has on constitutionally protected expression, especially when it targets criticism of authority or community-building activity in public spaces.
Together, the rulings point to a pattern of unconstitutional enforcement in San Diego - one that relies on vague or selectively applied ordinances to suppress speech that city officials or park rangers deem inconvenient or disruptive. While the city has since repealed the vulgarity ordinance challenged in the Dorsett case, it is still appealing the Ninth Circuit’s yoga ruling, drawing criticism from civil liberties advocates and residents alike who question why taxpayer dollars are being spent to litigate against expressive activity like stretching and speech on the beach.
The case was brought by William J. Dorsett, a self-described First Amendment activist and San Diego-based street performer, who was cited by a park ranger in June 2023 under San Diego Municipal Code § 56.27 after he called the ranger a "bully" while defending a fellow busker in Balboa Park. The law, which dated back to 1895, criminalized "offensive or disorderly conduct" and the use of "vulgar or indecent language" in public spaces.
Judge Moskowitz ruled that the law gave law enforcement officers "too much discretion" to determine what constituted prohibited speech, writing that it "chilled a substantial amount of free speech and was unconstitutionally overbroad." Citing longstanding Supreme Court precedent, the judge emphasized that the First Amendment protects even unpopular or offensive speech, especially when directed at public officials.
Dorsett's legal battle began when he was convicted at a bench trial without legal representation. On appeal, his conviction was reversed, with the court finding his comments were constitutionally protected. He then filed a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the ordinance itself. The city ultimately repealed the law earlier this year, but not before enforcing it against Dorsett and other individuals over the years.
The court granted summary judgment in favor of Dorsett under his Monell claim, holding the city liable for enforcing an unconstitutional policy. "This isn’t just a big win for me," Dorsett said in a statement. "It’s a big win for all San Diegans and for free speech in our city."
Dorsett’s attorney, Michele Akemi McKenzie of McKenzie Scott PC, said the decision underscores the dangers of using outdated municipal codes to suppress dissent. "The now-repealed, 130-year-old ordinance was used repeatedly by law enforcement in San Diego to punish constitutionally protected speech," she said. "The Constitution simply does not permit people to be punished for voicing their opinions even if - and especially when - those opinions are not popular with those who enforce the laws."
This case comes on the heels of another lawsuit brought by Dorsett and fellow performer Rogelio Flores challenging San Diego's sidewalk vending and busking restrictions, which remain pending in federal court. That suit claims the city's permitting scheme for artistic expression is vague, selectively enforced, and infringes on the rights of street artists.
The Dorsett ruling also echoes the controversy surrounding another now-repealed local ordinance - San Diego Municipal Code § 56.30, known as the "seditious language" law. Passed in 1918 and not repealed until 2020, the law criminalized any speech deemed seditious or likely to incite unrest. Though rarely used in recent decades, the statute had been disproportionately enforced against Black San Diegans and drew criticism from civil rights advocates, leading to its eventual repeal.
In both cases, legal experts say, San Diego's reluctance to proactively purge outdated and unconstitutional laws from its books has exposed the city to liability and undermined civil liberties. In court filings, Dorsett’s legal team noted that the city had known for years that it maintained archaic and potentially unlawful ordinances but failed to act.
Despite the repeal of § 56.27, Judge Moskowitz declined to issue a permanent injunction against its enforcement, finding the issue moot in light of the city’s legislative action. Nevertheless, the ruling affirms that citizens like Dorsett can effect meaningful change through litigation. "Dorsett’s lawsuit - the impetus for the repeal of Section 56.27 - shows that any citizen can change the law through litigation," Moskowitz wrote.
This ruling arrives amid heightened scrutiny of San Diego’s enforcement of outdated or overly broad laws targeting public expression - scrutiny that has intensified in the wake of another high-profile free speech case involving yoga instructors on the city’s beaches. In June, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a landmark decision in Hubbard v. City of San Diego, striking down the city’s ban on teaching yoga in shoreline parks and beaches as a violation of the First Amendment. The court held that instructing yoga, including the use of expressive movement and verbal guidance, constitutes protected speech - rejecting the city’s argument that such classes were commercial services rather than expressive conduct.
In both cases, federal courts found that San Diego municipal ordinances granted excessive discretion to law enforcement and city agencies to determine what kinds of speech or activity were permissible in public spaces. In Dorsett’s case, it was the use of the word "bullies" that triggered a citation under an archaic anti-vulgarity law. In the yoga matter, instructors like Steve Hubbard and Amy Baack were cited for holding peaceful, donation-based outdoor classes. The courts in each instance emphasized the chilling effect such enforcement has on constitutionally protected expression, especially when it targets criticism of authority or community-building activity in public spaces.
Together, the rulings point to a pattern of unconstitutional enforcement in San Diego - one that relies on vague or selectively applied ordinances to suppress speech that city officials or park rangers deem inconvenient or disruptive. While the city has since repealed the vulgarity ordinance challenged in the Dorsett case, it is still appealing the Ninth Circuit’s yoga ruling, drawing criticism from civil liberties advocates and residents alike who question why taxpayer dollars are being spent to litigate against expressive activity like stretching and speech on the beach.
As San Diego continues to face legal and fiscal pressure over these policies, the message from the courts is increasingly clear: the First Amendment does not yield at the city limits. The Dorsett ruling reinforces a central tenet of democracy: that speech - especially when critical of government - must be protected from arbitrary enforcement and retaliation.
Originally published July 18, 2025.
Originally published July 18, 2025.
