What do you think?
Rate this book
The Case Against the New Censorship: Protecting Free Speech from Big Tech, Progressives, and Universities
In The Case Against the New Censorship: Protecting Free Speech from Big Tech, Progressives, and Universities, Alan Dershowitz—New York Times bestselling author and one of America’s most respected legal scholars—analyzes the current regressive war against freedom of speech being waged by well-meaning but dangerous censors and proposes steps that can be taken to defend, reclaim, and strengthen freedom of speech and other basic liberties that are under attack.
Alan Dershowitz has been called “one of the most prominent and consistent defenders of civil liberties in America” by Politico and “the nation’s most peripatetic civil liberties lawyer and one of its most distinguished defenders of individual rights” by Newsweek. He is also a fair-minded and even-handed expert on the Constitution and our civil liberties, and in this book offers his knowledge and insight to help readers understand the war being waged against free speech by the ostensibly well-meaning forces seeking to constrain this basic right.
The Case Against the New Censorship is an analysis of every aspect of the current fight against freedom of speech, from the cancellations and deplatformings practiced by so-called progressives, to the powerful, seemingly arbitrary control exerted by Big Tech and social media companies, to the stifling of debate and controversial thinking at public and private universities. It assesses the role of the Trump presidency in energizing this backlash against basic liberties and puts it into a broader historical context as it examines how anti-Trump zealots weaponized, distorted, and weakened constitutional protections in an effort to “get” Trump by any means.
In the end, The Case Against the New Censorship represents an icon in American law and politics exploring the current rapidly changing attitudes toward the value of free speech and assessing potential ways to preserve our civil liberties. It is essential reading for anyone interested in or concerned about freedom of speech and the efforts to constrain it, the possible effects this could have on our society, and the significance of both freedom of speech and the battle against it in a greater historical and political context.
Alan Dershowitz has been called “one of the most prominent and consistent defenders of civil liberties in America” by Politico and “the nation’s most peripatetic civil liberties lawyer and one of its most distinguished defenders of individual rights” by Newsweek. He is also a fair-minded and even-handed expert on the Constitution and our civil liberties, and in this book offers his knowledge and insight to help readers understand the war being waged against free speech by the ostensibly well-meaning forces seeking to constrain this basic right.
The Case Against the New Censorship is an analysis of every aspect of the current fight against freedom of speech, from the cancellations and deplatformings practiced by so-called progressives, to the powerful, seemingly arbitrary control exerted by Big Tech and social media companies, to the stifling of debate and controversial thinking at public and private universities. It assesses the role of the Trump presidency in energizing this backlash against basic liberties and puts it into a broader historical context as it examines how anti-Trump zealots weaponized, distorted, and weakened constitutional protections in an effort to “get” Trump by any means.
In the end, The Case Against the New Censorship represents an icon in American law and politics exploring the current rapidly changing attitudes toward the value of free speech and assessing potential ways to preserve our civil liberties. It is essential reading for anyone interested in or concerned about freedom of speech and the efforts to constrain it, the possible effects this could have on our society, and the significance of both freedom of speech and the battle against it in a greater historical and political context.
1 pages, Audio CD
Published August 24, 2021
About the author
Alan M. Dershowitz
161 books326 followersAlan Morton Dershowitz is an American lawyer, jurist, and political commentator. He is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. He is known for his career as an attorney in several high-profile law cases and commentary on the Arab-Israeli conflict.
He has spent most of his career at Harvard, where, at the age of 28, he became the youngest full professor in its history, until Noam Elkies took the record. Dershowitz still holds the record as the youngest person to become a professor of law there.
As a criminal appellate lawyer, Dershowitz has won thirteen out of the fifteen murder and attempted murder cases he has handled. He successfully argued to overturn the conviction of Claus von Bülow for the attempted murder of Bülow's wife, Sunny. Dershowitz was the appellate advisor for the defense in the criminal trial of O.J. Simpson for the murder of his ex-wife Nicole Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman.
He has spent most of his career at Harvard, where, at the age of 28, he became the youngest full professor in its history, until Noam Elkies took the record. Dershowitz still holds the record as the youngest person to become a professor of law there.
As a criminal appellate lawyer, Dershowitz has won thirteen out of the fifteen murder and attempted murder cases he has handled. He successfully argued to overturn the conviction of Claus von Bülow for the attempted murder of Bülow's wife, Sunny. Dershowitz was the appellate advisor for the defense in the criminal trial of O.J. Simpson for the murder of his ex-wife Nicole Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews
July 11, 2021
First off, it is extremely difficult to write a review about a book that discusses free speech, especially when the author frequently reminds us of the outlook by many : "Free speech for me, but not for thee." As our current mood in the country demonstrates, it is a struggle for people to recognize that free speech not only applies to what they want to say, but also to those who stand diametrically opposed to those views. Alan Dershowitz accurately points out that the many roadblocks preventing the free speech we used to enjoy in this country.
While I agree with Mr. Dershowitz on his views of the dangers of arbitrary censorship being dangerous to free speech, the difficulty lies in accepting his right to speak his mind and simultaneously holding my personal views in check while reviewing this book. We agree that free speech is not deliberately mangling the truth (example: the media choosing to withhold the facts of Trump’s Charlottesville speech – reading the full transcript will help explain why President Trump labeled CNN and others as fake news). While I don’t believe Mr. Dershowitz followed in their footsteps by choosing to be misleading, there are statements in the book (averaging about one for every ten pages) that are given as fact when many are opinions one often hears as liberal media talking points. As the author points out, free speech is free speech, even if a fact-check shows that the statements are not factual. Liberals won’t see these statements and conservatives will feel their blood begin to boil. (To be fair, if Mr. Dershowitz was a conservative, both groups would feel differently…such is the current polarity in our country).
Mr. Dershowitz also lays the majority of the blame on President Trump with no more than a cursory glance at the 2000 election and the introduction of political organizer politics in 2008. These played a part along with the rise of social sites (Facebook, Twitter, etc,). At the same time, the author defended President Trump and his right to say what he said and why the January 6 speech was not an impeachable offense.
Bottom line , this is a book I recommend to those on both side of the aisle. America is on a slippery slope when the banning of conservative viewpoints is celebrated, as recent news indicates that liberals are also finding themselves in trouble in the social media swamp and also being banned. This is the main thrust of the book, that we must turn the battle away from those who express opposing views and toward those who would restrict the ability to speak our minds. Four stars.
While I agree with Mr. Dershowitz on his views of the dangers of arbitrary censorship being dangerous to free speech, the difficulty lies in accepting his right to speak his mind and simultaneously holding my personal views in check while reviewing this book. We agree that free speech is not deliberately mangling the truth (example: the media choosing to withhold the facts of Trump’s Charlottesville speech – reading the full transcript will help explain why President Trump labeled CNN and others as fake news). While I don’t believe Mr. Dershowitz followed in their footsteps by choosing to be misleading, there are statements in the book (averaging about one for every ten pages) that are given as fact when many are opinions one often hears as liberal media talking points. As the author points out, free speech is free speech, even if a fact-check shows that the statements are not factual. Liberals won’t see these statements and conservatives will feel their blood begin to boil. (To be fair, if Mr. Dershowitz was a conservative, both groups would feel differently…such is the current polarity in our country).
Mr. Dershowitz also lays the majority of the blame on President Trump with no more than a cursory glance at the 2000 election and the introduction of political organizer politics in 2008. These played a part along with the rise of social sites (Facebook, Twitter, etc,). At the same time, the author defended President Trump and his right to say what he said and why the January 6 speech was not an impeachable offense.
Bottom line , this is a book I recommend to those on both side of the aisle. America is on a slippery slope when the banning of conservative viewpoints is celebrated, as recent news indicates that liberals are also finding themselves in trouble in the social media swamp and also being banned. This is the main thrust of the book, that we must turn the battle away from those who express opposing views and toward those who would restrict the ability to speak our minds. Four stars.
September 4, 2021
4.25 Stars.
Quick light reading.
Alan Dershowitz, a Hillary Clinton donor and voter, and ACLU Board Member expounds on First Amendment and free speech issues.
On "Free speech for me but not for thee.":
"Precedents established today against the right will lie about like loaded weapons to be deployed against the left tomorrow." - Alan Dershowitz
Quick light reading.
Alan Dershowitz, a Hillary Clinton donor and voter, and ACLU Board Member expounds on First Amendment and free speech issues.
On "Free speech for me but not for thee.":
"Precedents established today against the right will lie about like loaded weapons to be deployed against the left tomorrow." - Alan Dershowitz
May 21, 2021
As usual, Alan Dershowitz comes to the point quickly, logically, and incisively, but there is also the problem. This is a relatively short 150-page book and by the time the introduction was completed he had made his points. As a result, most of the book is just a reprint of past editorial pieces and a few cases where he goes off on seemingly unrelated rants against anti-Semitism and other topics. One gets the feeling that he made his point and now just needs to fill pages.
However, in the end, this is an interesting book that will leave you thinking about a lot. Throughout the book he repeats the phrase "Freedom of speech for me, but not for thee." And there is the problem he is addressing.
However, in the end, this is an interesting book that will leave you thinking about a lot. Throughout the book he repeats the phrase "Freedom of speech for me, but not for thee." And there is the problem he is addressing.
September 25, 2021
.
Professor Alan Dershowitz's The Case Against the New Censorship: Protecting Free Speech from Big Tech, Progressives, and Universities.
Published in 2021, under 200 pages.
An OVERVIEW:
"Dershowitz...bestselling author and one of America’s most respected legal scholars—analyzes the current regressive war against freedom of speech being waged by...dangerous censors [on the political left, the Democratic Party] and [Dershowitz] proposes steps that can be taken to defend, reclaim, and strengthen freedom of speech and other basic liberties that are under attack.
"The Case Against the New Censorship" is an analysis of every aspect of the current fight against freedom of speech, from the cancellations and deplatformings practiced by so-called progressives, to the powerful, seemingly arbitrary control exerted by Big Tech and social media companies [like Facebook, Twitter, Youtube etc], to the stifling of debate and controversial thinking at public and private universities. [Harvard Law School where Professor Dershowitz taught is now petitioning to bar any students or faculty who supported the Trump Administration].
[And]...examines how anti-Trump zealots weaponized, distorted, and weakened constitutional protections in an effort to “get” Trump by any means. It is essential reading for anyone...concerned about freedom of speech and the efforts to constrain it..."
.
The book has 3 chapters along with an Introduction and Conclusion. Each section ends with the list of endnotes.
In the very long Intro the author defends freedom of speech which is now facing its greatest threat: censorship from progressives, young people, academia, high-tech, writers and many others who disturbingly will be the country's future leaders.
The new censorship, for the most part, does not violate the 1st amendment because it's coming from the private sector. The government is constrained by the Constitution to "make no law...abridging the freedom of speech." The author seems to blame Trump (DJT) for causing the Left to overreact and use excessive censorship. And the censoring turned into personal attacks against Trump's voters, his Administration; basically anyone on the Right.
DJT's defense lawyers were warned in a petition they could face retaliation or disbarment for defending the president during the second faux impeachment. Other censorship petitions were circulated by publishers, journalists and others which sought to prohibit anyone from the administration from publishing or even speaking at university. Dershowitz himself was invited to speak at Harvard Law, but the event was moved off campus because of threats to shut it down.
McCarthyism of the 1950s is compared with these "modern-day McCarthyites of the left" and they are a greater threat. Social media monopolies (Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc) selectively sensor content they dislike labeling it as untrue or offensive in order to justify their censorship of free speech and opposing political views. The author says the problem stems from lies being so pernicious and gives the Churchill quote: "A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on."
Free speech by Trump or by left-wing agitators may have motivated the violence, but the author states: "That is a price we pay for freedom of speech, and we should acknowledge its cost and argue that it is worth it."
The ACLU now supports only the leftist-progressive agenda and anything anti-Trump, but no longer prioritizes freedom of speech. The author makes the point that censoring free speech harms both sides; it restricts everyone. "Free speech for me but not for thee is the first step...to free speech for neither me nor thee."
Chapter 1.
Prior to the 2020 presidential election, Dershowitz called for preparations to handle the certainty of post-election violence which he said could come from extremists on either side. He also addresses our lack of civility and inability to debate with those expressing opposing views. Instead, differences of opinion are met with accusations, personal attacks and accusing the other side of racism and "every other -ism under the sun." Intolerance and lack of civility started on campuses and in the mainstream media long before Trump's arrival. "Next comes violence. It is inevitable when political opponents are dehumanized."
Elections are imperfect. Some details are given concerning the presidential election in 2000 (Bush vs Al Gore) which was decided by the Supreme Court and the author believes ballot errors ultimately caused Gore's defeat.
As for the 2020 election, he says both sides will complain because elections are always imperfect.
Dershowitz versus AOC, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez [the radical Democrat Representative from New York]. The author criticized AOC (10/9/2020) for making appeals to violent groups like Antifa and others committed to revolution (using a dog whistle). The author says AOC "...has crossed the line from radicalism to anti-Americanism and anti-decency." Of her many faults he expands on her "defund the cops" position and her slanderous accusations that cops are overpaid, racist murderers and she doesn't support Israel's right to exist.
DJT and his lawyers filed lawsuits and challenged the 2020 election procedures and results. Dershowitz maintains that election recounts and lawsuits are a normal part of the election process and the opposition should not be condemning it.
The author calls himself a "liberal Democrat," as well as very pro-Israel and wants a democrat-controlled Senate, but doesn't support his colleague Raphael Warnock, the junior Democratic Senator from Georgia. Warnock signed and supported an anti-Israel propaganda letter with misinformation about the Palestinian Authority and even delivered a sermon in support of these same views.
[At this point Dershowitz doesn't define what a liberal Democrat is, but he seems opposed to AOC, her "Squad" and the intolerance and violence supported by his Democratic Party, their propaganda media and the party's violent extremists like Antifa. He doesn't specifically address the months long violence, protests, pillaging and burning carried out and supported by those in his party. Dershowitz may not be aware that his nemesis AOC and the woke, radical, Progressives have co-opted his party, since he glosses over there many misdeeds].
Chapter 2.
Begins with Trump's speech of January 6th, 2021 and the riot at the Capitol. Dershowitz goes into considerable detail on how Trump's speech and comments made by other supporters are all constitutionally protected. Although he didn't like the speech, Dershowitz makes it clear it was not incitement nor sedition, etc. The First Amendment was "designed to permit controversial speech, or even dangerous speech," not just speech the Dems agree with. As for the rioters, they are responsible for their own actions and face criminal charges.
Further, Dershowitz condemned the second fake impeachment of Trump by the Democrats, explaining how it was without merit and unwarranted. In fact the Dem's "article of impeachment" and other assertions made by the Democrat's House Managers were actually unconstitutional.
In the interest of holding fake news outlets, like CNN, accountable for fake stories and for purposely misleading their audience, Dershowitz is suing CNN for defamation. They falsified Alan's comments about Trump's congratulatory Ukraine phone call and the alleged quid-pro-quo.
“Loyalty oaths:” required of professors, staff and the students at universities is a restriction against freedom of expression and amounts to "tyranny of the mind." Our culture of free speech goes beyond our First Amendment rights.
The Lib-Dem's attempted power grab - trying to impeach Trump as a private citizen to give themselves a precedent to disqualify (impeach) any former office holders they don't like and so prevent them from holding office in the future.
Cancel culture and censorship against everyone on the Right. Dershowitz the author, explains the difference between Liberals & Leftists. He identifies himself as a "liberal Democrat" and a "liberal civil libertarian." Liberals, like himself, are: tolerant; capable of debating controversial issues without dividing; we can disagree agreeably; we do not impose our values on our opponents; we believe in "do unto others..." [The Golden Rule]; we defend Liberty for all, due process, freedom of expression, the right to assemble, etc. [Sounds like most peeps on the right, the conservatives & GOP etc] and very few if any on the political left, especially nowadays.
The leftists, the anti-Trumpers "deny civil liberties to their enemies," especially no free speech nor due process for DJT and his voters. Leftists never tolerate opposing views, they dump friends who disagree with them and try to ban Trump supporters from college campuses.
The leftists are trying to cancel, to sensor the right. There's a concerted effort from the private sector and even from Democrats in Congress to shut down conservative channels and news services. Being hypocrites they have no problem with the one-sided, deceptive stories from CNN, MSNBC and others who doctor videos and sound bytes and distort facts to vilify the right. The Democrats, the leftists want a one-party news service, kind of like the old Soviet Union's Pravda, meaning truth, but reporting only the parties approved propaganda.
"Free speech for me but not for thee,” seems to be their approach. They would like to see network cable television become the Democratic party’s “Pravda.” And like the Soviet Union, they would like to take down all opposing views and deny them access to cable and satellite carriers."
Chapter 3.
On legitimate assassinations: the author supports removing ongoing threats to Israel and other innocents. However, the killing of Osama bin Laden, who was in hiding and supposedly no longer a threat, Dershowitz calls it a revenge killing. His point is the hypocrisy. Preventing terrorism should not be partisan. With Obama as President it was A-OK to revenge-kill bin Laden, but when Trump was president the killings of the Iranian nuke guy Mohsen Fakhrizadeh and Qassems Soleimani was condemned even though these two posed an imminent threat.
Denying people their rights in the interest of safety: because of gun violence and mass shootings red-flag gun confiscation laws have been introduced, denying a right without due process. Dershowitz warns: "when government starts taking away some rights in the interest of safety, all rights are at risk."
The bigotry of blaming Jews and Israel: BLM and extremists bizarrely blame Israel for the behavior of American cops and the death of George Floyd etc. The International Criminal Court (ICC) has officially recognized Palestine as a state, which amounts to a victory for terrorism.
In the conclusion he gives a brief history of violations of the First Amendment since its founding in 1791 on up to the McCarthyism of the 1950s. After the defeat of McCarthyism and up to the 21st century we enjoyed "the golden age of freedom of speech, press, and assembly." Now, we have the new extremist censorship of the 21st century.
Dershowitz also gives some lengthy predictions for a better future such as: "There will be changes in Section 230 that currently gives social media total immunity from defamation suits for material posted on its platforms." And "freedom of speech will endure, perhaps a bit wounded, perhaps made stronger by adversity."
.
Mostly liked it and was surprised there is still a devout Democrat who hasn't become an extremist nut, and who wholeheartedly believes in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, civil liberties and basic human decency. I really wish he could reform his divisive, deceptive, power-grabbing party.
..
.
Professor Alan Dershowitz's The Case Against the New Censorship: Protecting Free Speech from Big Tech, Progressives, and Universities.
Published in 2021, under 200 pages.
An OVERVIEW:
"Dershowitz...bestselling author and one of America’s most respected legal scholars—analyzes the current regressive war against freedom of speech being waged by...dangerous censors [on the political left, the Democratic Party] and [Dershowitz] proposes steps that can be taken to defend, reclaim, and strengthen freedom of speech and other basic liberties that are under attack.
"The Case Against the New Censorship" is an analysis of every aspect of the current fight against freedom of speech, from the cancellations and deplatformings practiced by so-called progressives, to the powerful, seemingly arbitrary control exerted by Big Tech and social media companies [like Facebook, Twitter, Youtube etc], to the stifling of debate and controversial thinking at public and private universities. [Harvard Law School where Professor Dershowitz taught is now petitioning to bar any students or faculty who supported the Trump Administration].
[And]...examines how anti-Trump zealots weaponized, distorted, and weakened constitutional protections in an effort to “get” Trump by any means. It is essential reading for anyone...concerned about freedom of speech and the efforts to constrain it..."
.
The book has 3 chapters along with an Introduction and Conclusion. Each section ends with the list of endnotes.
In the very long Intro the author defends freedom of speech which is now facing its greatest threat: censorship from progressives, young people, academia, high-tech, writers and many others who disturbingly will be the country's future leaders.
The new censorship, for the most part, does not violate the 1st amendment because it's coming from the private sector. The government is constrained by the Constitution to "make no law...abridging the freedom of speech." The author seems to blame Trump (DJT) for causing the Left to overreact and use excessive censorship. And the censoring turned into personal attacks against Trump's voters, his Administration; basically anyone on the Right.
DJT's defense lawyers were warned in a petition they could face retaliation or disbarment for defending the president during the second faux impeachment. Other censorship petitions were circulated by publishers, journalists and others which sought to prohibit anyone from the administration from publishing or even speaking at university. Dershowitz himself was invited to speak at Harvard Law, but the event was moved off campus because of threats to shut it down.
McCarthyism of the 1950s is compared with these "modern-day McCarthyites of the left" and they are a greater threat. Social media monopolies (Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc) selectively sensor content they dislike labeling it as untrue or offensive in order to justify their censorship of free speech and opposing political views. The author says the problem stems from lies being so pernicious and gives the Churchill quote: "A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on."
Free speech by Trump or by left-wing agitators may have motivated the violence, but the author states: "That is a price we pay for freedom of speech, and we should acknowledge its cost and argue that it is worth it."
The ACLU now supports only the leftist-progressive agenda and anything anti-Trump, but no longer prioritizes freedom of speech. The author makes the point that censoring free speech harms both sides; it restricts everyone. "Free speech for me but not for thee is the first step...to free speech for neither me nor thee."
Chapter 1.
Prior to the 2020 presidential election, Dershowitz called for preparations to handle the certainty of post-election violence which he said could come from extremists on either side. He also addresses our lack of civility and inability to debate with those expressing opposing views. Instead, differences of opinion are met with accusations, personal attacks and accusing the other side of racism and "every other -ism under the sun." Intolerance and lack of civility started on campuses and in the mainstream media long before Trump's arrival. "Next comes violence. It is inevitable when political opponents are dehumanized."
Elections are imperfect. Some details are given concerning the presidential election in 2000 (Bush vs Al Gore) which was decided by the Supreme Court and the author believes ballot errors ultimately caused Gore's defeat.
As for the 2020 election, he says both sides will complain because elections are always imperfect.
Dershowitz versus AOC, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez [the radical Democrat Representative from New York]. The author criticized AOC (10/9/2020) for making appeals to violent groups like Antifa and others committed to revolution (using a dog whistle). The author says AOC "...has crossed the line from radicalism to anti-Americanism and anti-decency." Of her many faults he expands on her "defund the cops" position and her slanderous accusations that cops are overpaid, racist murderers and she doesn't support Israel's right to exist.
DJT and his lawyers filed lawsuits and challenged the 2020 election procedures and results. Dershowitz maintains that election recounts and lawsuits are a normal part of the election process and the opposition should not be condemning it.
The author calls himself a "liberal Democrat," as well as very pro-Israel and wants a democrat-controlled Senate, but doesn't support his colleague Raphael Warnock, the junior Democratic Senator from Georgia. Warnock signed and supported an anti-Israel propaganda letter with misinformation about the Palestinian Authority and even delivered a sermon in support of these same views.
[At this point Dershowitz doesn't define what a liberal Democrat is, but he seems opposed to AOC, her "Squad" and the intolerance and violence supported by his Democratic Party, their propaganda media and the party's violent extremists like Antifa. He doesn't specifically address the months long violence, protests, pillaging and burning carried out and supported by those in his party. Dershowitz may not be aware that his nemesis AOC and the woke, radical, Progressives have co-opted his party, since he glosses over there many misdeeds].
Chapter 2.
Begins with Trump's speech of January 6th, 2021 and the riot at the Capitol. Dershowitz goes into considerable detail on how Trump's speech and comments made by other supporters are all constitutionally protected. Although he didn't like the speech, Dershowitz makes it clear it was not incitement nor sedition, etc. The First Amendment was "designed to permit controversial speech, or even dangerous speech," not just speech the Dems agree with. As for the rioters, they are responsible for their own actions and face criminal charges.
Further, Dershowitz condemned the second fake impeachment of Trump by the Democrats, explaining how it was without merit and unwarranted. In fact the Dem's "article of impeachment" and other assertions made by the Democrat's House Managers were actually unconstitutional.
In the interest of holding fake news outlets, like CNN, accountable for fake stories and for purposely misleading their audience, Dershowitz is suing CNN for defamation. They falsified Alan's comments about Trump's congratulatory Ukraine phone call and the alleged quid-pro-quo.
“Loyalty oaths:” required of professors, staff and the students at universities is a restriction against freedom of expression and amounts to "tyranny of the mind." Our culture of free speech goes beyond our First Amendment rights.
The Lib-Dem's attempted power grab - trying to impeach Trump as a private citizen to give themselves a precedent to disqualify (impeach) any former office holders they don't like and so prevent them from holding office in the future.
Cancel culture and censorship against everyone on the Right. Dershowitz the author, explains the difference between Liberals & Leftists. He identifies himself as a "liberal Democrat" and a "liberal civil libertarian." Liberals, like himself, are: tolerant; capable of debating controversial issues without dividing; we can disagree agreeably; we do not impose our values on our opponents; we believe in "do unto others..." [The Golden Rule]; we defend Liberty for all, due process, freedom of expression, the right to assemble, etc. [Sounds like most peeps on the right, the conservatives & GOP etc] and very few if any on the political left, especially nowadays.
The leftists, the anti-Trumpers "deny civil liberties to their enemies," especially no free speech nor due process for DJT and his voters. Leftists never tolerate opposing views, they dump friends who disagree with them and try to ban Trump supporters from college campuses.
The leftists are trying to cancel, to sensor the right. There's a concerted effort from the private sector and even from Democrats in Congress to shut down conservative channels and news services. Being hypocrites they have no problem with the one-sided, deceptive stories from CNN, MSNBC and others who doctor videos and sound bytes and distort facts to vilify the right. The Democrats, the leftists want a one-party news service, kind of like the old Soviet Union's Pravda, meaning truth, but reporting only the parties approved propaganda.
"Free speech for me but not for thee,” seems to be their approach. They would like to see network cable television become the Democratic party’s “Pravda.” And like the Soviet Union, they would like to take down all opposing views and deny them access to cable and satellite carriers."
Chapter 3.
On legitimate assassinations: the author supports removing ongoing threats to Israel and other innocents. However, the killing of Osama bin Laden, who was in hiding and supposedly no longer a threat, Dershowitz calls it a revenge killing. His point is the hypocrisy. Preventing terrorism should not be partisan. With Obama as President it was A-OK to revenge-kill bin Laden, but when Trump was president the killings of the Iranian nuke guy Mohsen Fakhrizadeh and Qassems Soleimani was condemned even though these two posed an imminent threat.
Denying people their rights in the interest of safety: because of gun violence and mass shootings red-flag gun confiscation laws have been introduced, denying a right without due process. Dershowitz warns: "when government starts taking away some rights in the interest of safety, all rights are at risk."
The bigotry of blaming Jews and Israel: BLM and extremists bizarrely blame Israel for the behavior of American cops and the death of George Floyd etc. The International Criminal Court (ICC) has officially recognized Palestine as a state, which amounts to a victory for terrorism.
In the conclusion he gives a brief history of violations of the First Amendment since its founding in 1791 on up to the McCarthyism of the 1950s. After the defeat of McCarthyism and up to the 21st century we enjoyed "the golden age of freedom of speech, press, and assembly." Now, we have the new extremist censorship of the 21st century.
Dershowitz also gives some lengthy predictions for a better future such as: "There will be changes in Section 230 that currently gives social media total immunity from defamation suits for material posted on its platforms." And "freedom of speech will endure, perhaps a bit wounded, perhaps made stronger by adversity."
.
Mostly liked it and was surprised there is still a devout Democrat who hasn't become an extremist nut, and who wholeheartedly believes in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, civil liberties and basic human decency. I really wish he could reform his divisive, deceptive, power-grabbing party.
..
.
August 26, 2021
The Case Against the New Censorship, Protecting Free Speech from Big Tech, Progressives, and Universities, Alan Dershowitz, author; Narrator, Jim Seybert
Alan Dershowitz is nothing, if not brilliant. He is a clear thinker. Without emotion, using simple facts and explanations, he has laid out his views about the new wave of censorship and limited free speech in America. He points out how it is being instigated and supported by the left in their effort to get rid of Trump, now and in the future. He points out the consequences. They failed to get rid of him as President so they are using all the tools at their disposal to continue to try and bring him down so he cannot run for office again. Using historic examples and present-day tactics, he informs the reader of just how heinous this behavior is and how it defies our Constitutional guarantees of free speech. He has so much knowledge at his fingertips that each reader will learn an enormous amount about how we earned our freedom and how we can hope to keep it.
The book is laid out, almost like an outline. Using pertinent bullet points, he follows up with explanations that develop them. It is easy to follow and is written in plain, rather than "legalize" language. Moving from the courtroom to Congress, the college campus to the classroom, the streets to the corporations, social media to the news media, using many examples, he illustrates how one side has managed to silence the other throughout history. The message is well researched as he explains how this group on the left, which would never stand for being silenced themselves, has currently hijacked the system meant to protect us and used it to abuse the Constitutional right to free speech for all.
Alan Dershowitz is a self-avowed liberal Democrat. He voted for Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden, he supported Obama, but he is appalled by the way the left is now abusing its power in order to silence any opposition. Democrats of all stripes, teachers, Congressmen and Congresswomen, journalists, CEO’s, Social Media, Silicon Valley, and other wealthy supporters are actively working to shut out the people that do not agree with them, effectively trying to establish a one-party system in America, with news disseminated like it is in Russia, creating a Pravda like state run information provider, enabling only the news of their side to be published. He writes about the misrepresentations and lies being promoted in order to achieve these goals.
In his own personal life, he has witnessed the left’s attempt to silence him, ignoring the fact that his message is based on his education, his research, and his experiences, not on his political views or Democrat dogma. For exposing the hypocrisy and its dangers, for shining a light on the hateful behavior censoring only one point of view, for exposing the lack of a cry to stop the censorship, for supporting free speech for all, for calling the news media and social media to open up to all voices, for acknowledging the wrongful impeachments of a President, and for showing the strength, courage and fortitude to stand up to the mob, his reward has been the loss of both friends and employment to that mob mentality. He is deemed too divisive. As he tries to alert the public to this dangerous behavior which discourages or eliminates free speech that is disagreeable to them, he also finds few others willing to share in his effort. I am hard pressed to name another. All I hear is the sound of silence from people around me who would be defiant if they were isolated with no means of communicating their feelings and ideas, but who now support the silencing of opposing ideas.
While Dershowitz is even handed, applying blame to both sides, concerning most of the issues facing us today, with respect to the election, he remains blinded by his partisan beliefs with regard to Trump. As more and more information is revealed, it becomes obvious that Trump was once again branded with wrongdoing when he was not, but to Dershowitz, Trump’s behavior regarding the election was beyond the pale. Although he does acknowledge the egregious behavior and comments of the left which infuriated and instigated some of the rhetoric, his political views are evident. He remains very loyal to the party and its members, although they have ostracized and ridiculed him. Although the left openly skirted the law or possibly even broke the law as the rules governing how elections were mandated were rewritten to serve their ends, using Covid as an excuse, he does not believe it could have affected the election results. He does believe that the left's anger toward Trump may move them to make impetuous, dangerous decisions, however, particularly regarding many of Biden's recent decisions. Any and all voices that question the election are now silenced, unfairly, and so are the questions about Hunter Biden or Joe Biden’s quid pro quo regarding the Ukraine prosecutor's investigation into his son. Dershowitz worries about how we will end up if this behavior does not stop and we do not become a united country once again. The left’s use of McCarthy like tactics, of fascist type decrees, can only lead to more divisiveness.
The left’s policy of praising Obama blindly while they unjustly attempt to destroy anything and anyone on the right, can only bring about disaster. We are already witnessing examples of that with regard to some of President Biden’s recent executive orders and policies. If he is motivated by his own biases and discontent, he will make even greater unwise decisions based on inaccurate predictions, simply to make his point and further his agenda. His party cannot continue to use Trump and the Jews to create headlines. He needs to be anchored in the reality of the day and unite us as promised, He needs to make his followers aware of how much they have lost for the sake of their vengeance and hatred of Trump. So far, he has only divided us further. The situation in the world today is moving very quickly, and in some ways, the book already feels outdated.
Alan Dershowitz is nothing, if not brilliant. He is a clear thinker. Without emotion, using simple facts and explanations, he has laid out his views about the new wave of censorship and limited free speech in America. He points out how it is being instigated and supported by the left in their effort to get rid of Trump, now and in the future. He points out the consequences. They failed to get rid of him as President so they are using all the tools at their disposal to continue to try and bring him down so he cannot run for office again. Using historic examples and present-day tactics, he informs the reader of just how heinous this behavior is and how it defies our Constitutional guarantees of free speech. He has so much knowledge at his fingertips that each reader will learn an enormous amount about how we earned our freedom and how we can hope to keep it.
The book is laid out, almost like an outline. Using pertinent bullet points, he follows up with explanations that develop them. It is easy to follow and is written in plain, rather than "legalize" language. Moving from the courtroom to Congress, the college campus to the classroom, the streets to the corporations, social media to the news media, using many examples, he illustrates how one side has managed to silence the other throughout history. The message is well researched as he explains how this group on the left, which would never stand for being silenced themselves, has currently hijacked the system meant to protect us and used it to abuse the Constitutional right to free speech for all.
Alan Dershowitz is a self-avowed liberal Democrat. He voted for Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden, he supported Obama, but he is appalled by the way the left is now abusing its power in order to silence any opposition. Democrats of all stripes, teachers, Congressmen and Congresswomen, journalists, CEO’s, Social Media, Silicon Valley, and other wealthy supporters are actively working to shut out the people that do not agree with them, effectively trying to establish a one-party system in America, with news disseminated like it is in Russia, creating a Pravda like state run information provider, enabling only the news of their side to be published. He writes about the misrepresentations and lies being promoted in order to achieve these goals.
In his own personal life, he has witnessed the left’s attempt to silence him, ignoring the fact that his message is based on his education, his research, and his experiences, not on his political views or Democrat dogma. For exposing the hypocrisy and its dangers, for shining a light on the hateful behavior censoring only one point of view, for exposing the lack of a cry to stop the censorship, for supporting free speech for all, for calling the news media and social media to open up to all voices, for acknowledging the wrongful impeachments of a President, and for showing the strength, courage and fortitude to stand up to the mob, his reward has been the loss of both friends and employment to that mob mentality. He is deemed too divisive. As he tries to alert the public to this dangerous behavior which discourages or eliminates free speech that is disagreeable to them, he also finds few others willing to share in his effort. I am hard pressed to name another. All I hear is the sound of silence from people around me who would be defiant if they were isolated with no means of communicating their feelings and ideas, but who now support the silencing of opposing ideas.
While Dershowitz is even handed, applying blame to both sides, concerning most of the issues facing us today, with respect to the election, he remains blinded by his partisan beliefs with regard to Trump. As more and more information is revealed, it becomes obvious that Trump was once again branded with wrongdoing when he was not, but to Dershowitz, Trump’s behavior regarding the election was beyond the pale. Although he does acknowledge the egregious behavior and comments of the left which infuriated and instigated some of the rhetoric, his political views are evident. He remains very loyal to the party and its members, although they have ostracized and ridiculed him. Although the left openly skirted the law or possibly even broke the law as the rules governing how elections were mandated were rewritten to serve their ends, using Covid as an excuse, he does not believe it could have affected the election results. He does believe that the left's anger toward Trump may move them to make impetuous, dangerous decisions, however, particularly regarding many of Biden's recent decisions. Any and all voices that question the election are now silenced, unfairly, and so are the questions about Hunter Biden or Joe Biden’s quid pro quo regarding the Ukraine prosecutor's investigation into his son. Dershowitz worries about how we will end up if this behavior does not stop and we do not become a united country once again. The left’s use of McCarthy like tactics, of fascist type decrees, can only lead to more divisiveness.
The left’s policy of praising Obama blindly while they unjustly attempt to destroy anything and anyone on the right, can only bring about disaster. We are already witnessing examples of that with regard to some of President Biden’s recent executive orders and policies. If he is motivated by his own biases and discontent, he will make even greater unwise decisions based on inaccurate predictions, simply to make his point and further his agenda. His party cannot continue to use Trump and the Jews to create headlines. He needs to be anchored in the reality of the day and unite us as promised, He needs to make his followers aware of how much they have lost for the sake of their vengeance and hatred of Trump. So far, he has only divided us further. The situation in the world today is moving very quickly, and in some ways, the book already feels outdated.
September 20, 2021
I agreed with his arguments but his wording got a little lost and rambled on sometimes.
September 15, 2021
A relativity short read. The introduction is footnote heavy and almost a full third of the book. The chapters are basically a selection of his op-eds that share a theme. It was very repetitive in this regard.
Beyond the click bait subtitle, it is a pretty standard appeal against censorship in almost all instances.
Beyond the click bait subtitle, it is a pretty standard appeal against censorship in almost all instances.
September 11, 2021
An intelligent and chilling read by one of the world’s leading legal scholars on current threats to the first amendment. Someone sent this to me and while it was an uncomfortable read it was definitely worthwhile. I recommend it to anyone in the media, academia, tech, communications and social justice.
April 6, 2024
IS BEING ‘KICKED OFF’ SOCIAL MEDIA EQUIVALENT TO ‘CENSORSHIP’?
Alan Dershowitz taught at Harvard Law School from 1964 to 2013; he identifies himself as a liberal Democrat (although he has notably taken on more ‘conservative’ cases in more recent years), and he often takes unpopular cases/causes (including defending O.J. Simpson, Jeffrey Epstein, Harvey Weinstein, and Donald Trump).
While I would LIKE to be able to agree with Dershowitz on many issues (e.g., I often deplore college students who rudely disrupt controversial speakers on their campus; or news media who selectively ‘edit’ recorded remarks to give a false impression), he seems quite inconsistent in often giving a ‘pass’ to Trump (who told his Jan. 6 followers, ‘if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore,’ and who dangerously ridiculed VP Pence for not going along with the ‘Big Lie’), and in being too ‘sensitive’ with regard to Israel. Actual LIES (e.g., about false cancer ‘cures,’ etc.) can and should be ‘censored’ by responsible social media.
But being ‘censored’ or ‘banned’ on some social media doesn’t PREVENT anyone from using Parler, Gettr, Truth Social, etc. If major book publishers don’t publish racist or anti-Semitic books, such writers aren’t prevented from publishing their books themselves, or with independent publishers. If Trump had simply conceded that he lost the election after losing all of his court cases (which Dershowitz thinks he SHOULD have done), and committed to a peaceful transfer of power, he would probably be back on Twitter, etc.
Dershowitz wrote in the Introduction to this 2021 book, “Freedom of speech in America is facing its greatest threats … [which] are even greater than during McCarthyism. This is true for three important reasons. First, today’s censorship comes… from so-called progressives… Second… [they] base their opposition … on policies supported by many Americans… [like] anti-racism, anti-sexism… anti-climate denial… Third, the current … censorship … for the most part… is not prohibited by the First Amendment: it is promulgated and enforced by private parties who have their own First Amendment rights…” (Pg. 1-3)
He adds, “In this short book, I will describe the current regressive war against freedom of speech being waged by ‘progressives,’ social media moguls, university administrators, and other … dangerous censors. I will assess the role of the Trump presidency in energizing this backlash against basic liberties… [and] how anti-Trump zealots … weakened constitutional protections in an effort to ‘get’ Trump by any means. I will focus on censorship by private social media, as well as by public institutions. I will also … assess the changing attitudes toward the value of free speech. Finally, I will propose steps… to defend, reclaim, and strengthen freedom of speech and other basic liberties that are under attack.” (Pg. 40)
He acknowledges, “Trump himself bears some of the responsibility for stimulating the recent censorial over-reaction. President Trump pushed the First Amendment to its limit… with his speech before the attack on the Capital Building, his remarks following the Charlottesville demonstration, and other provocative statements that many regarded as dog whistles… Trump was seen by many on the left… as a uniquely dangerous and evil president… The ‘noble’ end of silencing and defeating Trump justified any ignoble means, including denying him and his supporters and enablers the right of free speech, especially on social media.” (Pg. 4-5)
He asserts, “The major social media began with a model of neutrality, but have now largely abandoned … that model. They have censored content on grounds of offensiveness or untruthfulness… The social media will continue to live in … a gray area---of censorship. Is it possible to live within that gray area and still maintain a considerable amount of freedom and integrity? I believe the answer is a qualified yes---if the right steps are taken in advance. The two starting points… are, one, the GOVERNMENT should not engage in content censorship based on offensiveness or untruth; and, two, private individuals and groups are absolutely entitled to express objections to speech that they find offensive or false.” (Pg. 26-27)
He says, “What about boycotts of advertisers who sponsor content deemed deeply offensive to certain groups?... If, for example, a sponsor was to say, ‘I’ll advertise on this platform only if it puts down gays, or Blacks, or Jews,’ then the propriety of an economic boycott becomes more obvious. But if the sponsor merely declines to remove his ad from objectionable content, the propriety of a general product boycott becomes more questionable… We must persuade the American public that although most boycotts are constitutionally protected, some of them are morally WRONG… It is morally wrong … to try to shut down a stall in the marketplace of ideas because that stall is selling ideas that are objectionable to you. Set up your own stall and sell better ideas. That is what some new social media are doing by creating platforms that do not censor political speech based on content. I applaud that.” (Pg. 29-31)
He admits, “Private parties who would deny freedom of speech to others have their own freedom of speech… as long as they don’t employ … governmental assistance---in doing so. That is why the selective censorship currently being imposed by Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and other giant social and print media is so difficult to combat. The last thing … supporters of free speech want to see is governmental control over private media companies. We want these companies to remain free to … decide what to publish and not publish. We just don’t like the way they are exercising their First Amendment rights to selectively censor others. We must … persuade them that they are violating the spirit of the First Amendment while hiding behind its legitimate protections.” (Pg. 41)
He contends that the House Managers who impeached Trump after January 6th “[misled] Senators and viewers into believing that the people who trashed the Capitol were acting under orders from the President. Nothing could be further from the truth. First of all, only SOME who listened to the President’s speech went to the capitol. Many dispersed and when [sic] home. Only SOME who went to the capitol broke in and committed violence. If any of them thought they were obliged to follow the president’s orders, it is precisely because the media misled them into thinking that was the case.” (Pg. 108)
He argues, “I defend the right of social media to engage in selective censorship, but I reserve my own moral and political right to condemn… social media for depriving citizens of the right to hear even outrageous and wrong-headed views. I trust our citizens to use their own common sense in deciding hat to believe or disbelieve, while fully understanding the idea of circulating false information. The Big Lie sometimes gets believed. But what is worse … is the censor denying us the right to decide what to believe or disbelieve.” (Pg. 115)
He concedes, “Trump was wrong, in my view, not to concede after it became clear that he had exhausted all appropriate remedies, and he was wrong not to attend the Biden inauguration. He was also wrong to call on protesters to descend on the Capitol on the day they were certifying the electoral college votes… History will judge Trump harshly for his conduct between November 6 and January 20. But history will also harshly judge … [those who] voted for the impeachments of President Trump…” (Pg. 119)
He admits, “it is clear that some censorship must exist: child pornography; classified secrets; descriptions of how to make… dangerous weapons. The hard questions relate to dangerous and quack medical treatments; dangerous lies and defamations; overt racial or other bigoted content…” (Pg. 167)
Dershowitz makes some valid points; but the ‘blinders’ he himself wears selectively reduce the book’s impact considerably.
Alan Dershowitz taught at Harvard Law School from 1964 to 2013; he identifies himself as a liberal Democrat (although he has notably taken on more ‘conservative’ cases in more recent years), and he often takes unpopular cases/causes (including defending O.J. Simpson, Jeffrey Epstein, Harvey Weinstein, and Donald Trump).
While I would LIKE to be able to agree with Dershowitz on many issues (e.g., I often deplore college students who rudely disrupt controversial speakers on their campus; or news media who selectively ‘edit’ recorded remarks to give a false impression), he seems quite inconsistent in often giving a ‘pass’ to Trump (who told his Jan. 6 followers, ‘if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore,’ and who dangerously ridiculed VP Pence for not going along with the ‘Big Lie’), and in being too ‘sensitive’ with regard to Israel. Actual LIES (e.g., about false cancer ‘cures,’ etc.) can and should be ‘censored’ by responsible social media.
But being ‘censored’ or ‘banned’ on some social media doesn’t PREVENT anyone from using Parler, Gettr, Truth Social, etc. If major book publishers don’t publish racist or anti-Semitic books, such writers aren’t prevented from publishing their books themselves, or with independent publishers. If Trump had simply conceded that he lost the election after losing all of his court cases (which Dershowitz thinks he SHOULD have done), and committed to a peaceful transfer of power, he would probably be back on Twitter, etc.
Dershowitz wrote in the Introduction to this 2021 book, “Freedom of speech in America is facing its greatest threats … [which] are even greater than during McCarthyism. This is true for three important reasons. First, today’s censorship comes… from so-called progressives… Second… [they] base their opposition … on policies supported by many Americans… [like] anti-racism, anti-sexism… anti-climate denial… Third, the current … censorship … for the most part… is not prohibited by the First Amendment: it is promulgated and enforced by private parties who have their own First Amendment rights…” (Pg. 1-3)
He adds, “In this short book, I will describe the current regressive war against freedom of speech being waged by ‘progressives,’ social media moguls, university administrators, and other … dangerous censors. I will assess the role of the Trump presidency in energizing this backlash against basic liberties… [and] how anti-Trump zealots … weakened constitutional protections in an effort to ‘get’ Trump by any means. I will focus on censorship by private social media, as well as by public institutions. I will also … assess the changing attitudes toward the value of free speech. Finally, I will propose steps… to defend, reclaim, and strengthen freedom of speech and other basic liberties that are under attack.” (Pg. 40)
He acknowledges, “Trump himself bears some of the responsibility for stimulating the recent censorial over-reaction. President Trump pushed the First Amendment to its limit… with his speech before the attack on the Capital Building, his remarks following the Charlottesville demonstration, and other provocative statements that many regarded as dog whistles… Trump was seen by many on the left… as a uniquely dangerous and evil president… The ‘noble’ end of silencing and defeating Trump justified any ignoble means, including denying him and his supporters and enablers the right of free speech, especially on social media.” (Pg. 4-5)
He asserts, “The major social media began with a model of neutrality, but have now largely abandoned … that model. They have censored content on grounds of offensiveness or untruthfulness… The social media will continue to live in … a gray area---of censorship. Is it possible to live within that gray area and still maintain a considerable amount of freedom and integrity? I believe the answer is a qualified yes---if the right steps are taken in advance. The two starting points… are, one, the GOVERNMENT should not engage in content censorship based on offensiveness or untruth; and, two, private individuals and groups are absolutely entitled to express objections to speech that they find offensive or false.” (Pg. 26-27)
He says, “What about boycotts of advertisers who sponsor content deemed deeply offensive to certain groups?... If, for example, a sponsor was to say, ‘I’ll advertise on this platform only if it puts down gays, or Blacks, or Jews,’ then the propriety of an economic boycott becomes more obvious. But if the sponsor merely declines to remove his ad from objectionable content, the propriety of a general product boycott becomes more questionable… We must persuade the American public that although most boycotts are constitutionally protected, some of them are morally WRONG… It is morally wrong … to try to shut down a stall in the marketplace of ideas because that stall is selling ideas that are objectionable to you. Set up your own stall and sell better ideas. That is what some new social media are doing by creating platforms that do not censor political speech based on content. I applaud that.” (Pg. 29-31)
He admits, “Private parties who would deny freedom of speech to others have their own freedom of speech… as long as they don’t employ … governmental assistance---in doing so. That is why the selective censorship currently being imposed by Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and other giant social and print media is so difficult to combat. The last thing … supporters of free speech want to see is governmental control over private media companies. We want these companies to remain free to … decide what to publish and not publish. We just don’t like the way they are exercising their First Amendment rights to selectively censor others. We must … persuade them that they are violating the spirit of the First Amendment while hiding behind its legitimate protections.” (Pg. 41)
He contends that the House Managers who impeached Trump after January 6th “[misled] Senators and viewers into believing that the people who trashed the Capitol were acting under orders from the President. Nothing could be further from the truth. First of all, only SOME who listened to the President’s speech went to the capitol. Many dispersed and when [sic] home. Only SOME who went to the capitol broke in and committed violence. If any of them thought they were obliged to follow the president’s orders, it is precisely because the media misled them into thinking that was the case.” (Pg. 108)
He argues, “I defend the right of social media to engage in selective censorship, but I reserve my own moral and political right to condemn… social media for depriving citizens of the right to hear even outrageous and wrong-headed views. I trust our citizens to use their own common sense in deciding hat to believe or disbelieve, while fully understanding the idea of circulating false information. The Big Lie sometimes gets believed. But what is worse … is the censor denying us the right to decide what to believe or disbelieve.” (Pg. 115)
He concedes, “Trump was wrong, in my view, not to concede after it became clear that he had exhausted all appropriate remedies, and he was wrong not to attend the Biden inauguration. He was also wrong to call on protesters to descend on the Capitol on the day they were certifying the electoral college votes… History will judge Trump harshly for his conduct between November 6 and January 20. But history will also harshly judge … [those who] voted for the impeachments of President Trump…” (Pg. 119)
He admits, “it is clear that some censorship must exist: child pornography; classified secrets; descriptions of how to make… dangerous weapons. The hard questions relate to dangerous and quack medical treatments; dangerous lies and defamations; overt racial or other bigoted content…” (Pg. 167)
Dershowitz makes some valid points; but the ‘blinders’ he himself wears selectively reduce the book’s impact considerably.
September 18, 2021
Hahaha. Once again, Alan Dershowitz seems to somehow criticize the "Free speech for me, but not for thee" mentality and and the same time USE IT. This guy is such a fraud. And as usual his fraudulence was exposed by none other than Donald Trump. Dersowitz can't help himself (he's not as bad as Stephen King ) But he still cannot get through his writings without throwing jabs at Trump. Don't feel bad Alan, Trump exposed a lot of frauds so you're not alone.
Sadly, there's nothing really interesting in this book. It's a collection of essays written by Dershowitz over the last 1-2 years. And almost every essay gets taken over by his lefty-liberal leanings. Oh. But he's all for free speech. ( Unless you disagree with him. Well then you should probably be censored.)
Ugh.
Sadly, there's nothing really interesting in this book. It's a collection of essays written by Dershowitz over the last 1-2 years. And almost every essay gets taken over by his lefty-liberal leanings. Oh. But he's all for free speech. ( Unless you disagree with him. Well then you should probably be censored.)
Ugh.
December 14, 2022
“We have seen the enemy, and they are us” is how constitutional lawyer Alan Dershowitz (whose claim to fame included being on OJ’s defense team) describes how today’s censorship and cancel culture are being imposed not (directly) by government but instead by academia, the mainstream media, Big Tech (Meta, Google, etc.), and even popular entertainers and athletes - namely organizations and individuals that the majority of today’s citizenry admire and respect. Mr. Dershowitz, a self-proclaimed staunch liberal, fully recognizes that speech has the potential to inflame and to be false but nonetheless contends that such is the price we must pay - selective suppression, regardless of good intentions, is far more dangerous than free expression. There is also a thorough analysis about why Justice Holmes’s “‘Fire’ in a Crowded Theater” was a poor analogy and undeserving of the hallowed status it still enjoys today. Tl;dr the famous argument was proffered in the case of Schenck v. United States (1919) and involved the distribution of leaflets by socialist Charles Schenck to soldiers drafted to fight in WW1, urging them not to fight in a war promulgated by “Wall Street’s chosen few” and to assert their rights to argue against being drafted. In ruling against Schenck, Justice Holmes opined that the pamphlets created a “clear and present danger” hindering the war effort and reasoned that one does not have the right to falsely yell fire in a crowded theater. However, this is a bad analogy because the act of shouting fire bore little relationship to Schenck’s pamphlets, which contained a substantive political message that urged its reader to think about the message, and act on it in a lawful and nonviolent way. To the contrary, the man who shouts fire is neither sending a political message nor asking the listener to think about what has been said or what to do in a rational, calculated manner. Rather, the man is asking the listener to disregard contemplation and respond to adrenaline and his feet. It is a stimulus to immediate action, not thoughtful reflection. Shouting fire is not “speech” but rather the equivalent of setting off a non-verbal alarm. By cleverly substituting the derivative shout for the nonspeech pulling of the alarm, Holmes made it possible (falsely) to analogize one set of words to another. Perhaps a more appropriate analogy would have been a leafleter standing outside the theater and providing pamphlets asking patrons to consider that the theater might be unsafe. Another reason the analogy is inapt: the “fire” is false, whereas the message contained in the pamphlet was not. Worth noting though, the First Amendment does not recognize the truth or falsity of speech or of any claim.
December 25, 2021
In this brave book Dershowitz boldly argues that The UChicago Physics Department coming out against the Flat Earth theory is literally 1984.
On a more serious note, this incredibly messy book tries to draw a straight line between boycotting companies, Facebook, Twitter, AOC, not being invited to speak at universities, and the impeachment of Donald Trump. He does at one point say “this is reminiscent of George Orwell’s 1984,” which was quite funny. Especially since it was in the context of the most mundane shit I’ve ever heard. However the the remaining 191 pages where a waste of the paper they were printed on. However I forgive him for creating such an intellectually bankrupt book, since it’s clearly a call for help after the loss of his best friend Jeffrey Epstein.
Also, these are two quotes less then 15 pages apart with no acknowledgments of their clear contradiction:
“So we must oppose all calls for censorship, from the most severe to the relatively benign. Once we begin to accept the premise underlying the call for censorship, it becomes largely a matter of degree where we start and where we stop”
“But in the end, it is clear some censorship must exist: child pornography; classified documents; disruptions of how to make dangerous and illegal weapons.”
On a more serious note, this incredibly messy book tries to draw a straight line between boycotting companies, Facebook, Twitter, AOC, not being invited to speak at universities, and the impeachment of Donald Trump. He does at one point say “this is reminiscent of George Orwell’s 1984,” which was quite funny. Especially since it was in the context of the most mundane shit I’ve ever heard. However the the remaining 191 pages where a waste of the paper they were printed on. However I forgive him for creating such an intellectually bankrupt book, since it’s clearly a call for help after the loss of his best friend Jeffrey Epstein.
Also, these are two quotes less then 15 pages apart with no acknowledgments of their clear contradiction:
“So we must oppose all calls for censorship, from the most severe to the relatively benign. Once we begin to accept the premise underlying the call for censorship, it becomes largely a matter of degree where we start and where we stop”
“But in the end, it is clear some censorship must exist: child pornography; classified documents; disruptions of how to make dangerous and illegal weapons.”
April 28, 2023
I don't like lawyers but a well reasoned legal argument covering a complicated subject and delivered by a highly intelligent legal scholar (a former Harvard prof) is a different animal.
The problem with law is that it is a compromise between what is right and what is doable. Add to that the need to connect the dots to the wording of the law and precedent and it becomes an interesting puzzle that requires skill, research, and know how. Of course a lot of laws are written to benefit one group at the expense of the public, or to pretend to.
This is a better defense of Freedom of Speech under current conditions than I have seen elsewhere ( with a modest prediction for the near future.) Dershowitz makes it clear he is still as liberal as ever and not a leftist. I used to loath Dershowitz and have gradually shifted towards respect. I am sure a lot of people moved in the other direction.
Along the way he reminds us about government and that freedom of speech isn't there to defend democracy like some people claim, especially on TV. It is there to defend a free people against their government taking too much power away from them. He has some wonderful quotes along the way.
The problem with law is that it is a compromise between what is right and what is doable. Add to that the need to connect the dots to the wording of the law and precedent and it becomes an interesting puzzle that requires skill, research, and know how. Of course a lot of laws are written to benefit one group at the expense of the public, or to pretend to.
This is a better defense of Freedom of Speech under current conditions than I have seen elsewhere ( with a modest prediction for the near future.) Dershowitz makes it clear he is still as liberal as ever and not a leftist. I used to loath Dershowitz and have gradually shifted towards respect. I am sure a lot of people moved in the other direction.
Along the way he reminds us about government and that freedom of speech isn't there to defend democracy like some people claim, especially on TV. It is there to defend a free people against their government taking too much power away from them. He has some wonderful quotes along the way.
September 26, 2022
In this calm diatribe against censorship, Dershowitz pontificates on the corporate/left wing alliance promoting censorship and attacking the first amendment concerning freedom of speech. He speaks in detail regarding the constitutional exception against free speech promulgated against Donald Trump by his adversaries and the media. He provides constitutional legal arguments against Trump's second impeachment. Dershowitz provides unwavering support for freedom of speech and warns of the deterioration of the first amendment in the face of the progressive Left's abandonment of constitutional principles and American ideals. While I disagree with some of Dershowitz arguments I respect his right to make them. He is a brilliant legal scholar and does a valiant job expressing his legal arguments in favour of unadulterated freedom of speech for both the President of the United States and the common man.
September 14, 2021
Poorly edited, great points and ideas
I would expect better editing from a very famous lawyer. It seems that this was rushed with lazy editing. I noticed at least 10 poorly edited instances.
If you can ignore the above comment, then I recommend the book even though, in my opinion, the author is obviously biased against Trump and the opinion of the election being stolen.
I would expect better editing from a very famous lawyer. It seems that this was rushed with lazy editing. I noticed at least 10 poorly edited instances.
If you can ignore the above comment, then I recommend the book even though, in my opinion, the author is obviously biased against Trump and the opinion of the election being stolen.
October 27, 2021
I like the philosophical beginning of the book much more than the essays written as responses to past events. Granted, they were written at the time of the events, but I just didn't want to rehash them.
Cancel culture and wokeness are concerning to me but like Ricky Gervais, I can't wait to see how upcoming generations rebel against their woke parents. Should be hilarious!!!
Cancel culture and wokeness are concerning to me but like Ricky Gervais, I can't wait to see how upcoming generations rebel against their woke parents. Should be hilarious!!!
February 23, 2022
Hastily assembled collection of op-eds that allow the author to reflect public criticism of his defense of morally wrong but protected speech. His defense of the lawsuit against CNN was unconvincing. According to his own reasoning even false speech is protected. If he agrees with NYT v Sullivan, there are no legal grounds for a defamation lawsuit
October 29, 2022
Alan Dershowitz has a great legal mind and he is wonderfully consistent in his application of legal principles. This book is a wonderful little read. My only regret regarding Dershowitz is with regard to his spiritual blindness to the Gospel, since no law has the power to deliver from sin.
November 25, 2023
Dershowitz is insightful and very to the point on how this country has devolved into censoring free speech and the attacks on the 1st Amendment.
March 12, 2022
Alan Dershowitz always presents good arguments on importance Constitutional issues facing us. He does not choose to defend his views based on politics or popular views but on how they are affected by Constitutional law. He backs up what he says with case law. Reading works by Dershowiz are always more informative than watching nesw programs which have become propaganda and "for ratings only."
June 26, 2024
Prof. Dershowitz's books are always excellent. Highly recommended.
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews