Legal semantics can be tricky.

For example, according to Mexico City Manager Bruce Slagle, profanity falls under the legal umbrella of free speech providing it is not obscene. But obscenity is not protected as free speech.

So when a number of residents complained to council members about a flag tacked to a front porch of a home on Highway 22 in Mexico that replaces the “u” in a certain “f-word” with the American flag in a not so subtle swipe at President Joe Biden, semantics – and the nation’s valued protection of freedom of speech – became a bone of contention during the Mexico City Council meeting on April 26.

“I have parents complaining to me,” said council member Vicki Briggs. “Frankly, that’s the kind of sign eighth grade boys like reading.”

Council members were unanimous in their dislike for the message, as well as for the insertion of the national flag in a profane message. But public complaints had forced the council to discuss whether or not a measure could be drafted to confront the issue.

The city places a limit on political signs – not concerning the message, but rather stamping a date on how long signs can remain in place after an election.

“What we have is an ordinance that you can have an 18-square-foot sign and it can stay up until seven days after an election,” explained city attorney Louis Leonatti. “What it does not cover is flag, banners.”

The council was loath to engage in such a murky battle. Leonatti cited a 1971 case in California where a derisive message on a shirt was dismissed by a federal judge because there was no evidence it incited action.

But he also pointed to a radio show using suggestive language that received a fine and appealed. The court upheld the fine.

“You can see what a balancing act there is,” Leonatti pointed out. “As long as it doesn’t incite violence or flat out hate, the court will likely uphold it.”

Whether the banner spurs action is borderline, according to council members. But that was enough to request counsel rather than action.

The council brought up the matter after a number of complaints from local residents. One person who spoke at the council meeting referred to the sour image the flag would pass on to visitors passing through the city.

There is no ordinance in place to regulate the message on signs, but the city attorney explained that is was within the rights of the council to vote one in.

Despite their agreement that the banner lacks even a modicum of taste, however, the council members were reluctant to challenge the edges of free speech.

“If we want to get into this, we’re going to get into legal challenges,” Briggs said.

All noted that if someone unveiled such a sign at work, they would likely be fired. But freedom of speech is not protected at all job sites.

Council member Ayanna Shivers pointed out that the sentiment represented in the flag was not a reflection of the majority of city residents.

“Free speech protects the minority, and a lot of the time minority thought is ugly,” agreed council member Steve Haag. “I’m glad that we have free speech.”

In the end, the council determined to take no action. But they remained unanimous in contempt for the flag.

“As a council, we’re all offended by that sign,” Mayor Chris Miller said.