Rhoads 1

Zachary Rhoads

Professor McAllister

English 802: Analytical Reading and Writing

8 February 2019

Interpreting and Elaborating on Laws/Rights Pertaining Speech

The United States is the land of the free built on a foundation of fundamental human

rights and laws ; or at least most Americans would like to think that is the case. Unfortunately

the United State, like every county in the world, has its own set of problems. This paper will

focus on the rights every American and the consequent laws put forth to protect the amended

rights. Marc Tran’s “Combatting Gender Privilege and Recognizing a Woman’s Right to Privacy

in Public Spaces: Arguments to Criminalize Catcalling and Creepshots” will be analyzed and

critiqued as the purpose of his research. Tran explains his stance on the criminalization of street

harassment and some of the steps he believes should be taken to achieve a meaningful law

enactment. Unfortunately for Tran, his argument is too broad and provides little information that

provides a clear reason that will make street harassment a criminal offense. His argument, or lack

thereof, will ultimately render his writing as insignificant; or at least his argument on

criminalization of street harassment.

Tran, a J.D. candidate at the University of California Hastings School of Law, argues for

the criminalization of “catcalling” and “creepshots”. Focus we be shifted away from creepshot

and based solely on the criminalization of catcalling. I will agree with Tran, that street

harassment is a problem. It is unfortunate people, especially women, have to worry about sexual
 Rhoads 2
or threatening remarks made at them whilst in a public space. Yet, this is not a problem that laws

and government can fix. There is a larger social issue that has risen that must be fixed by society.

Tran argues that street harassment can lead to physical violence and even rape. He follows by

saying the street harassment could have an emotional toll on the victim. Yes these issues could

all be possible but, does that make it a criminal offense because something might happen. A

friendly conversation with a stranger could turn violent, so does that mean speaking with

strangers should be illegal? There is always a chance something could happen to anyone. It is

unorthodox to make a law criminalizing a behavior because an altercation might happen.

Tran recognizes that the majority are women.

“ Sixty-five percent of women reported experiencing at least one type of street

harassment in their lifetimes, [m]ore than half (57%) of all women had experienced verbal

harassment, and 41% of all women had experienced physically aggressive forms,

including sexual touching (23%), following (20%), flashing (14%), and being forced to do

something sexual (9%).

Tran quoted a survey of 2000 women conducted by StopStreetHarasment.org that

describes a horrific amount of women that had experienced street harassment. Unfortunately the

study did not include men nor did the survey describe the frequency of street harassment. Using

this survey alone does not provide enough information to conclude whether street harassment is a

gender related issue, but it is a common assumption that women are more often harassed than

their male counter parts. There should be efforts made to identify what street harassment looks

like and how people can stop themselves from partaking in the action. Public projects could be
 Rhoads 3
made or advertisements could be made to show what street harassment is and how people can

stop themselves if they realize they have been doing it.

Tran opens his argument with what he calls a “legal solution.” The so called “solution” is

a Kansas City’s City Councils ordinance concerning street harassment. Tran explains that the

ordinance can provide the framework for other cities and municipalities to create their own

anti-street harassment ordinances. Unfortunately the ordinance does not explain or describe the

type of street harassment is trying to combat in the first place. Yes the ordinance can serve as a

foundation for new laws, there is not disputing that fact; yet for the ordinance to be taken

seriously for lawmakers looking to specifically stop street harassment, it should have been added

to the original Kansas City ordinance. The ordinance lacks the representation of street

harassment in the form in which Tran is trying to make an argument against. The Kansas City

City Counsel had the opportunity to address harassment that is directed towards someone in a

sexualised or unwanted attention, but the ordinance only emphasises harassment in the form of a

threat.

Tran tranzitions and tried to explain the arguments against criminalising street

harassment. He generalizes and claims that proponents of anti-criminalization fall into three

categories “(1) opinions that criminalizing street harassment is too extreme, (2) questions about

what enforcement would look like, and (3) whether enforcement would be effective” (Tran 6).

Tran counters the first argument by discussion domestic violence. In about two paragraphs, Tran

explains that street harassment can be seen in the same light as domestic violence. He explains

that domestic violence in today's society is seen as an expected prosecutable offense and should

be treated as one and that since domestic violence is seen as a non controversial offense, street
 Rhoads 4
harassment might one day be also seen as a non controversial offense (Tran 7). He does explain

that there are difference between the two offenses, but does not explain the severity of each

offense. Although street harassment can lead to physical altercations, domestic violence is

exactly that; a violante act that involves a physical action upon a person. To imply street

harassment can be categorized with domestic violence is a stretch. Surely, if an instance of street

harassment becomes physical, a more harsh punishment would be given, but trying to compare

street harassment and domestic violence would be the same as trying to argue oranges and apples

are the same fruit. Yes they may be fruit but, they are completely different. Yes domestic

violence and street harassment can be repremendable offences, yet they are still different

offenses with different severities. Unlike street harassment, domestic violence already has strict

enforcement and punishment for that certain offense.

Tran does not offer the legality of street harassment. Per the first amendment in the Bill

of Rights “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the

free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the

people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances” (US

Constitution. Amend. I). Considering street harassment is a verbal altercation established by a

stranger to another, does the offender not have an inherent constitutional right to protect his

speech. Whether street harassment is deemed ethically wrong or not, all persons speech is

protected by the first amendment. There have been amendments to change the constitution, but to

change the meaning of free speech might have larger repercussions than the original effort to

change the amendment for one offense that may or may not be enforced properly by law

enforcement. Changing the first amendment for what seems to be a minor offense, opens the
 Rhoads 5
door for lawmakers to change other amendments to take away the rights of the people. Today,

there are talks of changing the second amendment and the right to bear arms. There has been a

massive outcry to preserve the second amendment; the argument being that the right to bear arms

is protected by the amendment itself. “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of

a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” (US

Constitution. Amend. II). The same is applied for the previously stated first amendment

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free

exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech….” (US. Constitution. Amend. I). If the

societal split between “gun keepers” and “gun leavers” is great, imagine the split and uproar that

could be caused by the stripping of the constitutional right the free speech.

Enforcement and who will be enforcing street harassment laws comes into question when

dealing with street harassment. Tran truly describes a ludicrous task force of police personnel

specifically deployed on the streets for harasers. “However, there may be a disparity in the way

that parking violations are handled and how street harassment violations could be handled

because there are entire subsets of law enforcement dedicated to parking enforcement. Perhaps a

similar fleet of street harassment officers could be dispatched” (Tran 8). While this idea of

adding a task force for street harassment may add jobs, it takes away resources for other

departments for more serious behaviors. That being said, an alternative solution could be the

implementation of a special unit that deals with street harassment cases. An example of a special

unit in place in some police stations are cyber crime units that deal with cyber crimes

specifically. A victim can report the harassment directly to the special unit and a police officer

that is already portoling the area could be dispatched to handle the altercation at hand. An
 Rhoads 6
entirely new division of policing is unnecessary and will ultimately cost more time and resources

that could be better implemented into another police division.

Tran offers some great arguments, but lacks depth in his arguments. He more so talks

about an issue, but he talks about it broadly and allows for a critical analysis to his writing.

Unfortunately Tran does does not provide enough information to conclude a solid reasoning for

the criminalization of street harassment. All hope is not lost with Tran’s work, as he explains a

larger social issue about gender related crimes. More efforts should be applied to research this

topic and how gender related crimes or altercation can be handled.

 Rhoads 7

Work Cited

Tran, Marc. "Combatting gender privilege and recognizing a woman's right to privacy in public

spaces: Arguments to criminalize catcalling and creepshots." ​Hastings Women's LJ2​ 6

(2015): 185.

“2014 National Street Harassment Report.” Stop Street Harassment,

www.stopstreetharassment.org/our-work/nationalstudy/.