The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Delusions of Persecution: #TrigglyPuff’s Feminist Friend Jennie Chenkin Is Crazy

Posted on | May 3, 2016 | 79 Comments

 

When an event last week hosted by College Republicans at the University of Massachusetts was disrupted by a Hampshire College student named Cora Segal (see “What #TrigglyPuff Means”), the point-and-laugh reaction by conservatives was predictable. For more than two years, I have been urging conservatives to begin Taking Feminism Seriously. When I was assigned to cover the DC SlutWalk protest for The America Spectator in August 2013, I saw first-hand and at close range the kind of delusional madness that has taken hold in the minds of young women under the influence of so-called Third Wave feminism. While it can be argued that Second Wave feminism (i.e., the radical Women’s Liberation Movement of the 1960s and ’70s) was similarly insane, Third Wave feminism has taken this lunacy beyond every hitherto imaginable limit. Young feminists have sailed into uncharted waters of craziness in those regions of the ancient maps marked “Here Be Dragons.”

 

The effect of this insanity that has gained such frightening influence was illustrated by the recent activities of Jennie Chenkin, a student at Hampshire College and friend of Cora Segal who participated in the April 25 protests at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Hampshire College is part of the Five College Consortium, along with Amherst College, Mount Holyoke College, Smith College and UMass Amherst:

Five Colleges, Incorporated is a nonprofit educational consortium established in 1965 to promote the broad educational and cultural objectives of its member institutions, which include four private, liberal arts colleges and the Amherst campus of the state university. The consortium is an outgrowth of a highly successful collaboration in the 1950s among Amherst College, Mount Holyoke College, Smith College, and the University of Massachusetts Amherst, which resulted in the founding of a fifth institution, Hampshire College, in 1970. . . .
Their proximity to one another in the Connecticut River Valley of western Massachusetts favors Five College collaboration, as does their commitment to the liberal arts and to undergraduate education.

Let me point out something that should be obvious here:

Taxpayer-supported UMass, you see, accounts for 73% of enrollment in this “consortium,” and rich kids at the high-tuition elite private schools benefit from a hidden state subsidy through this “collaboration.” UMass is the center of gravity among these Five Colleges, and you can bet that the spoiled brats spending Daddy’s money to attend Smith, Mount Holyoke, and Hampshire look down their snooty noses at the grubby proles who go to UMass. Whereas a poor-but-smart kid goes to UMass hoping to acquire an education that will enable him to get a good job and a middle-class income, the daughters of privilege like Jennie Chenkin spend $48,065 a year to attend Hampshire College.

Jennie Chenkin declares to the world that she is an oppressed victim living in a “white supremacist cisheteropatriarchal society.” This is what Daddy’s money paid for her to learn at Hampshire College, where spewing such pseudo-intellectual jargon is considered a valuable skill.

Thorsten Veblen would have spotted this immediately as an example of conspicuous consumption, the display of high socioeconomic status through ostentatious spending.
The reason you send your daughter to Hampshire College is to show that you can afford to send her there. Money is no object for the parents of these kids. The working-class Mom helping her teenager fill out her FAFSA paperwork and struggling to come up with $14,356 a year for tuition at UMass wants her kid to learn something useful, to become a nurse or a computer programmer or a business manager, to get the kind of education that will qualify them for a good job and allow them to have a higher standard of living. The parents of rich girls like Cora Segal and Jennie Chenkin, by contrast, cannot be bothered with such mundane concerns. Just write a check so their precious princess can go to an expensive private school where their professors teach them how oppressed they are by “cisheteropatriarchy” and they train to become activists for social justice. Whatever the precious princess wants, the precious princess must have, and how dare those hateful UMass College Republicans hurt her precious feelings?

My name is Jennie Chenkin. I am a Hampshire College junior on a pre-law track with a concentration in political theory, carceral studies, and conflict resolution. I am writing this email because I have been harassed mercilessly online following “The Triggering” event and I have reason to believe that UMass Republicans have endorsed this harassment and libel against me.
On Monday night, I attended the event “The Triggering” hosted by UMass Republicans in protest of the panelists they had chosen to bring in to speak on “social justice, feminism, trigger warnings, microaggressions, and more.” My friends and I held up a banner outside the venue that said “content warning: bigotry inside” and we passed out fliers which explained what we believe political correctness stands for. When the panelists came on stage, we booed and heckled and disrupted, because that was what we were there to do. We wanted to send a message that even if the majority of the room agreed with what was being said, there were people in the community who adamantly disagreed, and that we were also allowed to make our voices heard under free speech laws. . . .
On Tuesday morning, I awoke to a notification from Facebook, indicating someone had tagged me in a comment on the event page for “The Triggering.” Someone by the name of Clarence Emerson (who I later learned is actually Aidan Kearney, a UMass alum, sexual predator, and professional bully) had tagged me in his comment with this article attached, referring to me in the comment as “little boy.”
As you can see by reading the blog post, it contains libellous language against me and screenshots of comments I posted on the event page for “The Triggering”. I have been advised by my attorney that both the harassment and the use of my comments are illegal — the use of my comments being an infringement of copyright law as outlined by Facebook, where individuals hold copyright law over everything they post, even comments posted on public pages. Legalities aside, I have now been put in personal danger because Aidan Kearney has demonized me and posted my personal information on a public website which caters to anti-social justice people who hate me and people like me.

You can read the whole thing, but there are several problems here. First, Ms. Chenkin needs to get a better lawyer, because if posting screencaps of what people say on social media is a crime, the prison overcrowding crisis is going to get a whole lot worse very soon. Second, for someone to be complaining about “libel” in the same email where they call someone a “sexual predator” is highly ironic, to say the least. A quick Google search turned up accusations that Aidan Kearney acted quite crudely toward some female Buffalo Bills fans during a 2014 game between the Bills and the New England Patriots. Kearney is a Patriots fan, and if rudely taunting the fans of one’s NFL opponents is a crime, we’re going to need to have a serious discussion about prison overcrowding, OK? No matter how crude Kearney’s (alleged) behavior was, however, calling him a “sexual predator” takes it to a whole ’nother level. You’re going to have to show me an arrest report before I’d use such a term to describe somebody, and even then I’d make sure I included some sort of attribution like “according to the affidavit” and maybe I’d throw an “allegedly” or two into the story for good measure. (There is a reason why Brett Kimberlin lost that defamation suit against me, OK?)

Jennie Chenkin is reckless and irresponsible, which may have something to do with her being arrested last fall in Westfield, New Jersey, for shoplifting and possession of burglary tools. Guess what? Ms. Chenkin considers it harassment to mention her criminal record:

Aidan Kearney has taken it upon himself to publish two more articles about me, each getting progressively more aggressive in content. Most recently, he has made a post about me being arrested in my home state several months ago. Though I take full responsibility for engaging in the action which led to my arrest, this is something I have been very ashamed of and embarrassed about, and until this point I have kept it a very private matter for that reason. I no longer have that luxury and I am worried that this string of harassing and revealing blog posts about me may prevent me from getting a summer job, which I desperately need in order to be able to pay for the last year of my undergraduate education before I go to law school.

Now wait a doggone minute there, Ms. Chenkin! How is it that your Daddy, an eminent professional in Somerset County, N.J., could afford to send his precious princess off to a private school in Massachusetts, but now you’re getting arrested for shoplifting and complaining that you “desperately need” a summer job in order to pay for your senior year of college? And what’s this talk about “law school”? Is there a law school somewhere that has an affirmative action quota for thieves?

Since we’re asking questions here, Ms. Chenkin, can you explain to me how, on the one hand, you’re now so hard up for cash to pay your tuition at Hampshire College, and yet on the other hand you can afford the services of a lawyer (“my attorney”) to provide you with advice on copyright law, harassment, defamation and so forth? Also, why does your rambling 2,000-word email to officials at the University of Massachusetts include this irrelevant tangent?

[W]hen I first drafted this email, only the one article about me had been published on the turtleboysports website, which I again acknowledge has no affiliation with UMass and is not under UMass jurisdiction. A few hours later, another blog post had been made about me on the site. A few hours after that, a video featuring my friend — taken and published illegally by Mount Holyoke sophomore and Campus Reform representative Kassy Dillon, who is also being investigated for misconduct during and after the event — was published on Youtube and shared widely throughout the conservative web. This video has been viewed in the hundreds of thousands and has been shared on Twitter by the panelists themselves. It was featured on Fox News. The blog post about my arrest followed and then another blog post, revealing the identity of my friend in the video.

Exactly what do you expect UMass officials to do about this, Ms. Chenkin? You and your friend Cora Segal went to a public event at the University of Massachusetts where you “booed and heckled and disrupted . . . to make our voices heard under free speech laws.” And yet now you, a student at Hampshire College, write to UMass officials to blame the College Republicans (whose event you disrupted) for blog coverage of your activism and — oh, by the way — claiming that video of your protests was “illegally” recorded and uploaded to YouTube. Yet the person who recorded this video was not a UMass student, either, so why are you even bringing it up in your email to UMass officials?

The explanation for all this, I suspect, is that you are crazy, Ms. Chenkin.

Fortunately, Ms. Chenkin, I’ve located an eminent professional in your New Jersey hometown who might help you. He has a bachelor’s degree in psychology from Rutgers University, as well as a master’s degree and, in fact, he has been visiting Lecturer at Rutgers University Graduate School of Social Work as well as a faculty member at Rutgers University Center of Alcohol Studies. Call it a hunch, Ms. Chenkin, but I think you may already be . . . let’s say, familiar with this eminent professional.

Pardon me for saying this, ma’am, but when you keep spewing threats of legal action against anyone who mentions your name on a blog, I don’t think advice from a lawyer is the kind of professional help you need.

You are wacko, bonkers, deranged, demented, disturbed, off your rocker, a few fries short of a Happy Meal and cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs.

Seek help, Ms. Chenkin.




 


Category: Education, Sex Trouble

Comments

79 Responses to “Delusions of Persecution: #TrigglyPuff’s Feminist Friend Jennie Chenkin Is Crazy”

  1. Joe Joe
    May 4th, 2016 @ 12:08 am

    I was wondering what you would do with this. 😀

  2. robertstacymccain
    May 4th, 2016 @ 12:18 am

    Is there anything more despicable than a rich white girl claiming to be a victim of oppression?

  3. Joe Joe
    May 4th, 2016 @ 12:41 am

    A rich person of any race claiming to be a victim of societal oppression is ridiculous.

    But let me counter with something I saw this morning:
    http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027797712

    If you look at the link, you will see an Indian-born lesbian feminist leftist (if that isn’t redundant) shouting “racist!” at anyone who hints that Malia Obama’s acceptance to Harvard might have something to do with (1) her parents being legacies and (2) her father being President.

    Nothing against the young Miss Obama: I’m sure she did very well at Sidwell Friends, and she seems to have grown into a sweet young lady. But if there is a definition of “privilege” in the world of academic admissions, it is Malia Obama: daughter of a President (an exclusive club) and of two Harvard legacy parents. (40% of Harvard acceptances are legacies.) Malia’s privilege is certainly not her fault and certainly one could describe Chelsea Clinton the same way.

    But according to the aforementioned lesbian feminist leftist of color–whose family was wealthy enough to immigrate from India to the US when she was a child–it is “racist” to even suggest that Malia has any privilege at all.

    Now compare Malia Obama with any white Mary Jones (from West Virginia coal country, or Appalachia, or Upper Darby, PA) whose parents are working class and maybe make 40K between them. Mary goes to a public school, and against all odds, she gets very high SATS and straight A’s. But according to our lesbian feminist leftist of color, Mary is privileged because of skin color alone, and any acceptance she gets to any school is because of her skin color, not her hard work in the face of adverse socio-economic conditions at home.

    So yes, I can imagine something just as despicable as a crazy rich white girl crying oppression: a crazy Indian-born leftist lesbian whose truly racist notion of privilege would paint Malia Obama as oppressed.

  4. Wombat_socho
    May 4th, 2016 @ 12:51 am

    There’s really no bottom to this particular rabbit hole.

  5. Joe Joe
    May 4th, 2016 @ 12:52 am

    Nope.

  6. Joe Joe
    May 4th, 2016 @ 1:59 am

    From the National Review:

    “If you believe the leftist media and academia, one of the preeminent problems in modern America is “white privilege.” On this
    point, Sullivan is quite right: The opposite is true; white working-class Americans feel particularly powerless over their fate. They switch on their televisions and — instead of sympathy — find
    themselves besieged by the message that they’re the biggest problem in
    America. The media’s collective heart is big enough to offer a
    sympathetic look at a convicted felon looking for a second chance, but
    an Evangelical Christian, a gun owner, or a Civil War re-enactor will be
    forever suspect.

    Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/434880/andrew-sullivan-american-democracy-tyranny-thesis

  7. Fail Burton
    May 4th, 2016 @ 2:36 am

    Gender feminists are mentally disturbed pathological liars. I can smell the klonopin and xanax through the screen. Their male “allies” are sadomasochists who enjoy being sexually and racially humiliated.

    The obvious problem is these morons were not told “no” at an early stage. Now they sense blood in the water, a thing all predatory mental cases are good at since they spend their lives arranging their hysterias in a way meant to garner the most sympathy.

  8. UMass alum
    May 4th, 2016 @ 3:53 am

    For people who don’t know Hampshire College, well, it’s in a class entirely by itself. It was created from scratch as the loony hippie college of the 1960s out on the farmland of the Connecticut Valley, and that’s what it still is. Because it’s so tiny it doesn’t get a lot of attention, but I assure you, UC Berkeley is right-wing compared to little Hampshire. Berkeley is socialist Sweden. Hampshire is pure North Korea.

    –UMass alum

  9. Fail Burton
    May 4th, 2016 @ 4:51 am

    When’s the last time racial blood libels, biological supremacy, sociopathy, anti-free speech and general madness was mainstreamed into a nation’s public arena as progressive justice?

    Would that be Nazi Germany?

  10. RS
    May 4th, 2016 @ 5:36 am

    While this young lady’s writings ooze self-importance, what’s more interesting is her evident belief that she should never be held accountable in any way for her behavior or that she should receive anything other than kudos for actions. Assume the same blogposts, quotes, video and so forth which she finds so offensive but place them on left-wing sites accompanied by undiluted praise for her actions. Is she “consulting” a lawyer then? Of course not. It’s not the publicity which is pissing her off. It’s the fact that the publicity is not accompanied by adulation that’s sending her over the edge.

  11. gunga
    May 4th, 2016 @ 6:42 am

    Do rich hippies smell any better than the regular kind?

  12. M. Thompson
    May 4th, 2016 @ 6:43 am

    They might take a bath to please Mom & Dad to get tuition.

  13. CrustyB
    May 4th, 2016 @ 7:33 am

    “white supremacist cisheteropatriarchal society”

    I’m paraphrashing ExJon when I say that the death toll among the strawmen is catastrophic. BTW somebody do me a favor and please kill me if ever drop an eight-syllable word like “cisheteropatriarchal.”

  14. CrustyB
    May 4th, 2016 @ 7:38 am

    Regular hippies stink of ganja. Rich hippies stink of Burt’s Bees.

  15. Critical Eye
    May 4th, 2016 @ 8:06 am

    “cisheteropatriarchal” – infuriate the right people by using the word “normal” instead.

  16. Evi L. Bloggerlady
    May 4th, 2016 @ 8:15 am

    #MakeCisNormativeGreatAgain

  17. kilo6
    May 4th, 2016 @ 8:22 am

    Oleg from The People’s Cube has a good one:
    http://thepeoplescube.com/images/various_uploads/Che_Conchita_red.png

  18. kilo6
    May 4th, 2016 @ 8:40 am

    It’s interesting that the website Democrat Underground and Depleted Uranium both have the common abbreviation of DU.
    Both types of DU are also known for their high density and toxicity.
    Coincidence?

  19. Joe Joe
    May 4th, 2016 @ 9:23 am

    I think not! 😀

  20. Steve Skubinna
    May 4th, 2016 @ 10:54 am

    Or Western Europe right now…

  21. Steve Skubinna
    May 4th, 2016 @ 11:06 am

    So these people exercised their First Amendment rights, and are outraged that somebody else exercised theirs right back. They do not get it, which is obvious considering that their original First Amendment activity was an attempt to suppress others’ First Amendment rights.

    It has just occurred to me that their ideology is the millennial equivalent of “Old man yells at cloud.” Were they really living under the oppression they pretend they are, none of us would ever be hearing from them. It reminds me of Mark Steyn’s remark concerning 9/11 Twoofers: If 9/11 really were an inside job, you wouldn’t be proclaiming it on your bumper sticker.

    Anyway, I want me some of that there White Privilege. After sixty years I’m damn tired of having to work for everything I get.

  22. Dianna Deeley
    May 4th, 2016 @ 11:22 am

    No, not really. Nor anything much more ridiculous.

    BTW, the shoplifting? That’s not even all that unusual. But in possession of burglary tools? That’s a little more surprising.

  23. Dianna Deeley
    May 4th, 2016 @ 11:31 am

    While this is true, it’s also unfair, as Burt’s Bees actually makes pretty good products.

  24. CrustyB
    May 4th, 2016 @ 12:09 pm

    Oh, I’m sure their diaper ointment is top-notch. I’m just not sure it should be used as after-shave though.

  25. gunga
    May 4th, 2016 @ 12:34 pm

    Yeah, a rich white girl thief claiming to be the victim of oppression…

  26. gunga
    May 4th, 2016 @ 12:37 pm

    Varying proportions of patchouli and stank is what usually comes to mind…

  27. Steve Skubinna
    May 4th, 2016 @ 1:06 pm

    I imagine her consultation with her “lawyer” went like this:

    Otter: Take it easy, I’m pre-law.
    Boon: I thought you were pre-med.
    Otter: What’s the difference?

  28. Steve Skubinna
    May 4th, 2016 @ 1:46 pm

    Did she steal the burglary tools? That would be, like sooooo meta.

  29. Andy
    May 4th, 2016 @ 3:56 pm

    Yes but we need a vote.

    Would you hit it?

  30. Jeanette Victoria ?????????
    May 4th, 2016 @ 4:51 pm

    All of these progressive tea cups really believe they can sue someone for reposting publicly available information. And yet they engage in libelous smears campaign themselves.

    My own special tea cup Thomas A Mix is upset because his mother’s application for a protection order for domestic violence because he committed battery upon his father was posted. This is a PUBLIC document that the general public can find for themselves on the INDIAN RIVER COUNTY CLERK http://ori.indian-river.org/ page.

    He even thinks that posting a link to a newspaper article about his bodybuilder sister is stalking his family…someone is in for a big disappointment.

    How did these special snowflake come to believe that they are immune from public scrutiny when they behave outrageously in public?

  31. Fail Burton
    May 4th, 2016 @ 5:12 pm

    What do you figure her mental age is? About 7?

  32. Steve Skubinna
    May 4th, 2016 @ 5:29 pm

    Only with a cluebat.

    Or maybe a clue by four.

  33. Steve Skubinna
    May 4th, 2016 @ 5:34 pm

    My guess is that it begins with Participation Trophies for everyone. Eventually it metastasizes into a shrill insistence that everybody applaud their specialness at all times, and any other response is hate speech.

    Which, as we all know, is exempt from the First Amendment. Seriously, Jefferson totally said that. You can look it up. The issue of The Federalist Papers commenting on that precept I quote in full:

    “Well, duh.”

  34. Steve Skubinna
    May 4th, 2016 @ 5:35 pm

    Hard to tell if she is immature or stupid.

    I do not discount both.

  35. Jeanette Victoria ?????????
    May 4th, 2016 @ 5:55 pm

    I’m Hispanic and yet I get accused of having “White Privilege” can’t win for losing….

  36. Kirby McCain
    May 4th, 2016 @ 6:41 pm

    Which is why as I read our Host’s several attempts to describe her type of crazy I’m thinking ‘come on Stacy she’s Soup Nazi crazy.’

  37. DeadMessenger
    May 4th, 2016 @ 7:26 pm

    Heh. I thought the same thing when I read this. (Because it’s essentially true.)

  38. Steve Skubinna
    May 4th, 2016 @ 7:26 pm

    Ah, another “White Hispanic” like George Zimmerman. Worst kind of waaaaaacist.

    Plus. a gender traitor unless I am drawing unwarranted inferences from your name and photo…

  39. DeadMessenger
    May 4th, 2016 @ 7:27 pm

    And Oleg knows what he’s talking about.

  40. Jeanette Victoria ?????????
    May 4th, 2016 @ 7:44 pm

    What you think I look like a guy?

  41. Adobe_Walls
    May 4th, 2016 @ 8:30 pm

    It never stopped .

  42. Adobe_Walls
    May 4th, 2016 @ 8:31 pm

    Quite.

  43. Steve White
    May 4th, 2016 @ 8:32 pm

    If Ms. Chenkin were the kind of person who would answer questions from me (a mild-mannered, cis-het white Catholic professional man), I would ask the following questions:

    1) To what extent will your criminal conviction hinder you in law school, particularly at the point of applying to the bar?

    2) Have you considered how you will discuss your shoplifting conviction in any law school interviews you may receive?

    3) Do you expect that a law school education will alter your beliefs regardless the concepts of public spaces, tolerance, free speech, libel, and defamation?

    4) How many classes have you taken at U Mass Amherst while attending Hampshire College?

    5) Do you have in your possession today any burglary tools?

    That’ll do for a start.

  44. Adobe_Walls
    May 4th, 2016 @ 8:35 pm

    And they wonder why ”Dingbat” is the feminine of ”Nitwit”.

  45. Steve White
    May 4th, 2016 @ 8:56 pm

    Another point: I find it humorous indeed that a young woman majoring in, and with an interest in, “carceral studies” (prison studies) and conflict resolution would be convicted of burglary and shoplifting. Perhaps her court experience counts as an internship…

  46. Steve White
    May 4th, 2016 @ 9:00 pm

    And one more point: I’m a physician. Like virtually all of my colleagues, in my pursuit of admission to medical school I did the following:

    1 — get good-enough grades
    2 — score well on the admissions test
    3 — avoid being convicted of a felony

    I’m comfortably certain that the requirements for admission to a law school are similar. Did Ms. Chenkin miss on point #3? Did she not understand that intuitively? Did she think that she’d take a course on that (Criminal Studies 311, “Avoidance of felony conviction as a prerequisite to professional school admission”, 2 credit hr, seminar and recitation, offered at Hampshire and at U Mass Amherst, quarterly)?

    Or does she think that her privilege (and that of her father) will get her a pass into a lower-tier law school?

  47. RS
    May 4th, 2016 @ 9:05 pm

    As a practicing attorney, I can tell you that law schools inform their prospective students during the application process that arrests–with or without convictions (a term of art)–must be disclosed to the Supreme Court of the state where one intends to practice. Even run-ins with regulatory agencies which do not rise to the level of criminal behavior can cause problems. In my class, there was a former stockbroker who ran afoul of the SEC (Securities Exchange Commission, not Southeastern Conference, BTW) and was summoned before our state’s Supremes the night before the bar exam to explain himself and get final permission to take the bar.

  48. Jeanette Victoria ?????????
    May 4th, 2016 @ 9:58 pm

    As licensed medical professional I had a similar background check including fingerprints taken and run though the FBI and local law enforcement.

  49. M. Thompson
    May 4th, 2016 @ 10:32 pm

    I’m not a Marine, so no. Plus, married.

  50. Eliezer Sumner
    May 4th, 2016 @ 10:52 pm

    It’s actually far worse than that. There is a common misconception that the “freedom” in “freedom of speech” means “do whatever you want”. In truth, “freedom” means “the absence of force”. That is to say, “freedom of speech” does not mean that I can say whatever I want. What it means is that “nobody can prevent me from expressing myself.” Since that freedom applies to everybody, it also means that I cannot use my speech to prevent anyone else from expressing themselves.

    The claim that one can yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater is based on the incorrect “do whatever you want” definition of freedom. According to the correct “absence of force” definition, one absolutely cannot yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater (unless, of course, there really is a fire) since by doing so one would be denying the freedoms of the other people in the theater who are there to express themselves via enjoyment of the movie, musical, speaker, etc. that is supposed to be happening in the crowded theater in question.

    Consequently, the SJWs were NOT exercising their First Amendment rights. They were attempting to deny the First Amendment rights of the other attendees (and speakers) by trying to prevent the speakers from speaking and the listeners from listening. Had they protested in a way that did not prevent the free expression of the speakers and attendees (e.g. voicing their contrary beliefs at some other venue, or on some other day, etc.) then the First Amendment would absolutely apply to them. But they didn’t so it doesn’t.

    Since the actions of Jenny Chenkin and friends were, by definition, a violation of the others’ First Amendment rights and, therefore, unconstitutional, Jenny et al should instead be very happy that they will not be properly prosecuted to the full extent of the law because the law is too corrupt to uphold the Constitution properly.

    In conclusion, it is not the case that the SJWs used their First Amendment rights and are complaining that other attendees used their First Amendment rights back. Rather, the SJWs acted unconstitutionally against the First Amendment rights of the others and are now complaining that the others responded accordingly. Personally, I think this makes Jenny Chenkin even more contemptible than she was already.