SUPREME COURT SHIFT? – Security OVER Rights!

Amidst escalating violence, Alan Dershowitz warns of a future where security takes precedence over free speech, tipping the balance of constitutional rights.

At a Glance

• Alan Dershowitz fears Supreme Court may lean towards security over free speech.
• Brandenburg v. Ohio could be reconsidered amid rising political violence.
• Growing violence against Jewish communities fuels debate on constitutional rights.
• Glenn Beck voices concern about public support for censorship following violent events.

Security versus Free Speech Concerns

Alan Dershowitz, renowned legal scholar, voices grave concerns over current trends that could see the Supreme Court prioritize security over the cherished right to free speech. With rising violence, particularly targeting Jewish communities, calls for amendments to established standards, such as those set by Brandenburg v. Ohio, grow louder. Dershowitz argues that while these calls for violence should be condemned, they must remain protected under free speech. However, he foresees a judicial tilt toward security-oriented decisions.

Watch coverage here.

Glenn Beck shares this unease, voicing concern that a major violent incident might sway public opinion toward censorship, risking essential constitutional protections. The potential to redefine what constitutes incitement under current legal precedents threatens the foundations of free speech. According to Dershowitz, what we face is a quiet erosion of rights under the guise of emergency security measures.

The Threat from Rising Violence

Recent incidents highlight the grim reality of Dershowitz’s predictions. In Boulder, an illegal migrant targeted a pro-Israel rally with violent means like a flamethrower. This incident came closely after a shooting near the Capital Jewish Museum in Washington, D.C. Alan Dershowitz argues these events exemplify how inflammatory language can quickly escalate into real-world violence, possibly prompting the Supreme Court to rethink First Amendment boundaries.

Quote: “When Brandenburg was written, we didn’t live at a time when we saw this kind of rhetoric that escalates into violence so quickly. So I’m not saying I would favor it. But if you’re asking me as a legal scholar to make a prediction, I would bet the current Supreme Court would be open to the possibility of moving a little bit further on the side of security over free speech. I think that’s a trend that we may see occurring.” – Alan Dershowitz.

These violent actions reflect a disturbing trend of attacks against Jewish communities and pro-Israel elements, driven by extremist pro-Palestinian groups. The push to globalize the Intifada and spread calls for violence under the banner of free speech raises alarms for the future of constitutional liberties.

Balancing Acts and Historical Lessons

Dershowitz does not merely critique the trend towards suppressive security measures; he calls for a balanced approach that respects both security needs and freedom of expression. Drawing lessons from history, he emphasizes how government overreactions, akin to the internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII, should caution against sacrificing rights on the altar of security.

Quote: “The security people from the college came up to me and said, ‘We’re terrified that there might be a copycat attempt to kill you because you’re a prominent spokesman for pro-Israel points of view,’ and so they created a whole security thing around me where they created an escape plan; they had policemen with machine guns and with bulletproof glass to protect me.” – Alan Dershowitz.

Dershowitz further engages with technological advancements, advocating for the responsible use of AI and other tech tools to track and prevent violence without infringing upon freedoms. It’s a clarion call to preserve the delicate equilibrium between safeguarding citizens and upholding the foundational liberties that define American society.