Nobody in Kate Nagle’s GoLocalProv article about the First Amendment makes the most important point.  Like Ethics Commission rulings the First Amendment sets the limits beyond which government officials simply cannot go.  It does not mean that everything they can think to do up to that point is appropriate or should be tolerated by the electorate.

That means there’s no counterbalance to this, the most interesting statement in the article:

“As a first amendment scholar, I certainly would protect anyone’s right to free speech. Our right to speak freely its what buttresses our democracy,” said Dr. Paola Prado, Assistant Professor of Communication at Roger Williams University. “On another level, the world has changed. This kind of misogyny has no place in a progressive society, and an economy where women are an integral part of making our country move forward for our joint prosperity.”

The first thing that jumps out is the word “progressive.”  What’s that doing in there?  Even in deep-blue Rhode Island, the progressives are a distinct bloc in the legislature, and they aren’t yet controlling.  To call our entire society “progressive” is to reveal one’s self to be more of an activist and ideologue than a “scholar.” Similarly, her nuanced view of freedom of speech is not matched by a rational view of what constitutes “misogyny.”

She’s also got things backwards.  I’d argue that women have always been “an integral part of making our country move forward,” but as the limits on their opportunities expand, it becomes less critical to beat down male chauvinism, not more.  It becomes less about relative power and more about imprudent statements between equals.

Of course, that’s Progressivism: All things immoral by their lights should be made illegal, and conversely, anything legal must be moral. Moreover, equality is achieved by empowering favored groups at the expense of disfavored ones.