The dean of Berkeley Law School has long been acknowledged as an “expert” on the First Amendment. Then again, Harvard’s Larry Tribe has long been acknowledged as a constitutional scholar. But while most eyes are on Trump, if only because people have chosen to divert their eyes from Harvey Weinstein interviews involving potted plants, an old issue continues to get flogged in Congress. Revenge porn.

The symposium also featured Professor Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California Berkeley School of Law and nationally distinguished scholar of constitutional law, who spoke at length on the topic of “revenge porn” and the First Amendment. Describing himself as a “staunch advocate of freedom of speech,” Chemerinsky provided a comprehensive explanation of why laws prohibiting nonconsensual pornography do not violate free speech. (Emphasis added.)

The “symposium” consisted of the usual same four gals who have been pushing this all along, putting on a show within their echo chamber where they repeat the same cool stories over and over, nodding their heads in the righteousness of their lies. And Chemerinsky is hardly new to the cause, having been the one academic with any credentials who hasn’t made that face one makes when one smells something truly awful. But this comes up again because they’re still hoping to sneak a law past Congress while everybody is watching Darth Cheeto twit something crazy.

In particular, Chemerinsky voiced his unequivocal support for the Intimate Privacy Protection Act (IPPA), sponsored in 2016 by Congresswoman Jackie Speier (D-CA) and drafted in collaboration with CCRI. Though a number of states already have laws against nonconsensual pornography, Chemerinsky explained, “The state statutes are too weak. There really needs to be a federal statute here.”

Stop chuckling. So what if last year’s argument was “these statutes” are absolutely necessary, and now it’s that they’re “too weak.” What kind of shitlord expects intellectual consistency, if not honesty? But finally, finally, Chemerinsky, renowned First Amendment scholar that he is, will finally (did I mention “finally”?) provide a “comprehensive explanation of why” these laws do not violate the First Amendment.

Chemerinsky noted that his support of criminal laws against nonconsensual pornography is “one of the rare instances where I’m on the opposite side of the ACLU,” which has opposed legislation prohibiting nonconsensual pornography on free speech grounds. The ACLU has also argued that any criminal prohibition of nonconsensual pornography must require “intent to cause harm to the victim.” 

On the one hand, the ACLU’s “opposition” to revenge porn laws has been, ahem, tepid at best. Even Danielle Citron realized that a mens rea requirement was minimally necessary, breaking ranks from Mary Anne Franks’ twisted fury that allowed for any claim that served her end.

On the other hand, maybe Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the law school where campus free speech was won, and is now being lost, would explain the one thing Franks was never capable of. Why?

Chemerinsky disagreed strongly with this position, saying, “I don’t see anything in the First Amendment that says there has to be an intent to cause harm to the victim. If the material is intentionally or recklessly made publicly available, I think that is sufficient, and I don’t think it should just be about intent to cause harm to the victim. Imagine that the person is putting the material online for profit or personal gain. That should be just as objectionable as to cause harm to the victim.” 

That’s it? The “comprehensive explanation of why” consists of “I think that is sufficient”?

Summarizing the matter succinctly, Chemerinsky stated, “Any time there’s the dissemination of sexually explicit material without consent, that should be impermissible.”

Well, there ya go. It doesn’t violate the First Amendment because Chemerinsky doesn’t think so. But Erwin’s deep thoughts aren’t done yet.

Chemerinsky also referenced the need to amend Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act, which, in its current form, poses challenges in forcing internet providers to remove sexually explicit images disseminated without consent.

And so comes a blast from the past.

It’s not just Trump for whom there’s a twit for all occasions. But with nobody watching Revenge Porn Rabbi, Rep. Jackie Speiers, this could slip through without anyone noticing. After all, Chemerinsky says it’s cool, because reasons.