Colorado Rights Blog


  • Tuesday Olson knew her pregnancy was in trouble and tried to access hospital care as soon as possible. But there was a problem: she was in jail. This is her story.
  • It’s time to end the death penalty in Colorado. Family members who lost loved ones to murder speak out against an unjust and broken system.

  • One year ago, thousands of Coloradans marched in a historic display of resistance. At the ACLU of Colorado we carried that spirit throughout the year, fighting on many fronts for civil liberties. We won’t stop now.

  • By canceling DACA, Trump has put 800,000 young people at risk of losing their jobs and being deported from the only country they know as home. Passing the bipartisan Dream Act would protect them. We asked four Dreamers why the Dream Act is important to them and their future.


September 16, 1999

The American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado (ACLU) announced today the filing of a lawsuit to challenge the constitutionality of a Colorado regulation that bars profanity in bars and restaurants that sell liquor.

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of Leonard L. Carlo, owner of Leonard's Bar II in Colorado Springs, also challenges actions taken on August 31 by the Colorado Division of Liquor Enforcement. According to the lawsuit, the State of Colorado acted illegally when it relied on the anti-profanity regulation as grounds for summarily confiscating 29 signs that had been on display in Carlo's bar.

According to David Reitz, Director of Liquor Enforcement, authorities are reviewing the matter to determine whether to file an administrative charge against Carlo for alleged violation of the anti-profanity regulation. The possible sanctions include suspension or even revocation of Carlo's liquor license.

"The First Amendment forbids the State of Colorado from punishing individuals simply for using language that government officials regard as offensive," said Mark Silverstein, ACLU Legal Director. "As the Supreme Court has explained, 'One man's vulgarity is another's lyric.'"

"The Supreme Court's metaphor is perfect match for this case," Silverstein added. "Profanity is Mr. Carlo's lyric. He loves four-letter words. That is clear from his conversation as well as from the name he chose for his dog."

According to the lawsuit, Carlo's affection for foul language, which has shaped the character and image of his bar, is reflected in the signs confiscated by the government. A sign Carlo posted to advise customers not to ask for credit, for example, contained a vulgar expression. The sign marking the location of the men's room did not simply say "men."; it used two words, and most newspapers would not print one of them.

"The Constitution protects our right to free expression," Silverstein added. "It does not permit government inspectors to monitor private businesses to ensure that the owners express themselves in accordance with government-approved standards of good taste."

The ACLU confronted a related issue in Colorado Springs last year, when it challenged the police department's enforcement of an ordinance that made it a crime to use "indecent language" in a city park. Police had already charged at least 18 individuals with using swear words when the ACLU wrote a forceful letter demanding an end to the practice. The City promptly called a halt to the ticket-writing and revised the ordinance.

In contrast, Silverstein said, the Division of Liquor Enforcement has repeatedly taken the position that it has a right to censor language that it regards as offensive. In a suit filed in early 1998, the ACLU challenged Colorado's practice of censoring beer labels. The plaintiff, Broadway Brewing Company, was denied permission to distribute in Colorado because its proposed label contained the expression "Good beer . . . no shit," which Reitz deemed to be "obscene or profane in nature." Reitz refused to back down, and the case is still pending.

Today's lawsuit, Carlo v. Reitz, was filed in federal district court in Denver. The suit seeks both a preliminary and permanent injunction, including the return of the confiscated signs, as well as a declaratory judgment holding that the anti-profanity regulation violates the Constitution.

Return to News