People are often challenged to put their money where their mouth is. A San Diego ordinance for "vulgar or indecent" speech in public that hadn't been updated in over 120 years was causing some to pay money for what their mouths said.
While the city realized the statute was perhaps a bit out of step with the times and repealed it in April 2025, one of the ordinance's previous victims wanted to make sure it could never return. On July 18, 2025, a U.S. district court judge partially granted summary judgment to William Dorsett, agreeing that San Diego's Section 56.27 was unconstitutional.
What did Dorsett say that got him in such hot water? As might be expected from a statute drafted in the 19th century, not something that would cause many people to be scandalized today.
A Great Disturbance in the Force (or Park)
Given its moderate climate, San Diego attracts more than its fair share of street musicians, magicians, and artists. Referred to as "buskers," they often give spontaneous performances or displays of their talents in the hope that some of the viewing audience or passersby will show their admiration or appreciation in the form of a cash tip.
San Diego has laws in place regulating sidewalk vendors and performers. These include requiring permits for certain types of vendors and designating specific areas where those who need additional equipment for their busking, like chairs or a table, won't be in violation.
Balboa Park, with over 1200 acres of space, is popular with both residents and tourists. It contains the San Diego Zoo and 17 museums, and it's also a popular location for buskers to ply their trade. This can cause friction between the performers and the park rangers, who police there and claim the buskers clog fire lanes and inhibit pedestrian traffic.
In June 2023, Dorsett, a self-styled First Amendment advocate, was approached by other buskers to confront what they claimed to be over-the-top enforcement of anti-busking laws by the Balboa Park rangers. When he arrived on the scene, he began filming rangers as they gave a busker making bubbles with dish soap a citation for causing an "environmental impact issue."
While filming, Dorsett sided with the bubble maker and told him to stand up to the rangers because "they're being bullies." One of the rangers overhead Dorsett and wrote him a citation for disorderly conduct under Section 56.27. The ordinance, created in 1895 and last updated in 1903, gave law enforcement the power to cite anyone who "created a disturbance" using language that was "offensive, vulgar, or indecent."
What was considered to qualify as "offensive" language was left up to the officer's discretion. Citing the law as vague and a violation of constitutional free speech rights, Dorsett took San Diego to court.
One Step Back, Then a Whole Bunch of Steps Forward
Dorsett's quest for justice didn't start well. Representing himself, he opted for a bench trial. The judge, using the definition for "disturbance" from Black's Law Dictionary, ruled that Dorsett was indeed guilty of violating Section 56.27. The appellate court overturned the decision in May 2024, holding that Section 56.27 was unconstitutional due to overbreadth and issues of preemption.
Not satisfied with his victory, Dorsett filed a lawsuit to make sure Section 56.27 was never a thorn in any busker's side again. Requesting summary judgment for six claims that included First and Fourteenth Amendment rights violations and violations of law under Monell, Dorsett also sought to enjoin San Diego from ever enforcing Section 56.27 again.
While the case was going through the legal process, the problem more or less solved itself when San Diego repealed Section 56.27 in April 2025. In his decision on July 18, U.S. District Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz ruled Dorsett's request to enjoin the city moot, as Section 56.27 was no longer on the books.
Whether this changes how Dorsett refers to park rangers remains to be seen.
Related Resources
- Fourteenth Amendment Due Process (FindLaw's U.S. Constitution)
- Surveillance or Invasion of Privacy? (FindLaw's Courtside)
- Ninth Circuit Rules Beach Yoga Enjoys First Amendment Protections (FindLaw's Federal Courts)
