"Lawyer -- and law prof! -- Nancy Yeong deals with some street harassment and comes to the conclusion (which I hope will be embarrassing to her in hindsight) that the First Amendment needs a little pulling back."

I have a better idea for Nancy Yeong: learn to rise above it.

People respond with what they know. She was angry, she's a law professor, so she thinks there's a law solution. Rhonda Rousey would think along the lines of kicking his ass.
Her 14>1 argument is reversed. They thought of #1 first because it was important. #14 is supportive of #1, not controlling.

My understanding which mostly likely came from a reddit troll is the order of the amendments has nothing to do with importance or controlling but reflects the order of the article of the constitution that they are modifying.

Professor Young writes about herself

> I teach and write about constitutional rights and remedies, criminal procedure, discrimination, judicial behavior, law and culture, and markets.

And on to this she writes:

> we’d recognize that inequality-reinforcing speech deserves regulation and punishment. ... There are speech interests on both sides of the street harassment debate, but First Amendment absolutists are hellbent on only seeing one of them.

It seems irresponsible for her as a law prof who writes about remedies to say we should be restricting speech without giving her advice or guidance on how to do that. And since she hasn't give us that advice or guidance, I see no reason not to be the First Amendment absolutist on this.

I'd prefer the stuck up cunt stop with her name calling about First Amendment absolutists unless she has some practical suggestions to add to her demands.

> My understanding which mostly likely
> came from a reddit troll is the order
> of the amendments has nothing to do
> with importance

That was the advice of the broadcast law prof in '77, too, as we considered constraints on journalism and media. Paraphrase: Don't start swingin' your dick around just because it's #1… It could been #4 or #7 or #....



> People respond with what they know.
> She was angry, she's a law professor,
> so she thinks there's a law solution.

Verily, but the problem is that most people nowadays know about little besides policy... So if something's going wrong, it's someone else's fault. Or at the very lease, government should be expected to make it better anyway.




The midwest is a having a heavy-weather weekend, causing a senior in my family to recall a headline on the front page of the paper about fifty years ago, with delivery delayed by snowfall, as I arrived on this planet: "Please take care of your own problems."

Can you imagine such a thing today>

Shorter response: Grow up.

We prioritize the speech of some misogynist loser yelling at a woman on her way to the office over whatever that woman might say once she gets there.

Who's prioritizing?

The misogynist loser has his rights to speak and the woman on her way to the office has hers. Both are intact.

In his speaking, the loser is not interfering with the woman's right to speak her mind - in the office or out.

But Ms. Yeong wants the woman on her way to the office to be able to interfere with the loser's right to speak his mind (limited though that mind may be).

No priorities - except making sure the government at any level (see the above-referenced 14th amendment which applied Amendments 1-10 to state and local governments) cannot interfere with anyone's right to speak his or her mind.

I understand she's offended (and possibly a bit scared that he might have done something other than yell obscenities at her). But her remedy is in tort law, not the disproportional truncation of Constitutional freedoms.

Also, she's operating from the mistaken standpoint that the Constitution grants an individual freedom of speech. Au contraire mes amis. The Constitution bars the government from abridging an individual's already established (God-given) right to free speech. That's a very important distinction - especially for a law professor.

"Verily, but the problem is that most people nowadays know about little besides policy..."

Ain't it the truth. There's so much of a tendency these days for people to view government and politics as a pure power contest, with neither of those things having any guiding principles. Just win, baby.

The problem is that people have been trying to equate being affronted with being harmed. They have been alarmingly successful at that. This woman was in no way harmed other than having had been made angry.

Yes, street harassment is vulgar, tasteless, tacky, stupid, vile, and all that. But when you start equating that with things like being mugged or assaulted, you're headed down the path to authoritarianism (which is, of course, exactly where these people want to go.)

This woman was in no way harmed other than having had been made angry. ~ Posted by: Farmer Joe at March 3, 2015 8:30 AM

And, perhaps, frightened.

Now, she wants the government to make the mean man go away.