Alan Dershowitz Is Confused About The First Amendment. Again.

Alan Dershowitz Is Confused About The First Amendment. Again.

Are you alright, Alan Dershowitz? Do you need a policeman or a grownup? Or maybe a refresher 1L ConLaw class might do the trick.

The famed emeritus Harvard Law professor seems to be confused of late about FIRST AMENDMENT, HOW DOES IT GO? Here in US America, it goes like this:

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.

Literally none of that says "It is UNLEGAL for companies and people to tell me to shut up and stop defaming them." Indeed, it is axiomatic that only the government can violate the First Amendment by suppressing speech. And yet, Dersh and his pals in Wingnutistan keep filing these batshit lawsuits insisting that any corporation that contracts with the government literally becomes the government forever after.

Mike Lindell, who is being advised by Prof. Dershowitz, made this argument in his countersuit against Dominion Voting Systems, which is suing him for defamation. And now a bunch of weirdos who got cease and desist letters from Dominion's lawyers are attempting to file a class action against the company for doing the RICO to their free speech rights. With an assist from Dersh!

"This lawsuit is not about who is right or wrong regarding the merits of the election or claims of fraud or mistake," begins the complaint, which was filed yesterday in a federal court in Colorado. "It is about whether these issues are worthy of debate under the First Amendment, and whether a corporation that has participated in the election as a state-actor has the power to chill such debate by employing intimidating 'Lawfare' tactics."

Here on Planet Earth, Dominion is not a state actor; it's a private company which has every right to use the legal system to protect its reputation. Nevertheless, the plaintiffs allege that they received cease and desist letters telling them to quit saying that Dominion machines were used to perpetrate election fraud, and this amounts to intimidation and suppression of speech in violation of the First Amendment.

Here's one plaintiff demanding money because she felt sad when she got a letter telling her to knock off the defamation already:

Upon reading the Letter, Daavettila felt afraid and scared for her family. After being threatened and in fear of her life and that of her unborn child while working at the TCF Center, this letter exacerbated all of those feelings. Why was she being threatened with a lawsuit? How would this affect her family? Daavettila was terrified and has been damaged by Dominion, Clare Locke, and HPS' Lawfare campaign.

And because the First Amendment exists, nothing bad will happen to lawyers who put their signatures on a lawsuit containing language this brain meltingly stupid:

Dominion has not waged its Lawfare campaign as only a corporate citizen, but also as a state-actor, i.e., the government. Dominion is a state-actor because States across the United States have outsourced their constitutional obligation to run elections by deferring to Dominion's professional experience and contracting out the administration, collection, counting, recording, and auditing of ballot results through voting technology, software, and thousands of hours of technical and election services.

Ditto for filing a nonsensical allegation of a civil conspiracy between Dominion and its own lawyers to DO THE RICOS to the plaintiffs. No the lawyers are not included as defendants here. What kind of operation do you think these guys are running?

But there's no reason on God's green earth that a person like Alan Dershowitz, who bloody well knows better, should associate himself with this act of litigious masturbation.

"I consider this a part of the bigger-picture efforts, that includes my consulting on Mike Lindell and MyPillow's cases," he told reporters from the Daily Beast, which first noted the filing. "I believe the election was absolutely fair, I believe President Biden is the legitimately elected president. But I think the issue should be debated and should not be censored. I believe Dominion is trying to suppress free speech."

Well, he sort of believes it. Just not, you know, enough to put his name on this piece of crap complaint, calling himself an "adviser and consultant on the First Amendment issues of this case."

"I certainly would never support any kind of coup d'état," he added helpfully.

But after the fact, when the coup plotters need someone with gravitas to pretend their positions aren't rank horseshit? Well, Dersh is the man for that job.

[Beast / Cooper v. Dominion, docket via Court Listener]

Follow Liz Dye on Twitter!

Click the widget to keep your Wonkette ad-free and feisty. And if you're ordering from Amazon, use this link, because reasons.

How often would you like to donate?

Select an amount (USD)

Liz Dye

Liz Dye lives in Baltimore with her wonderful husband and a houseful of teenagers. When she isn't being mad about a thing on the internet, she's hiding in plain sight in the carpool line. She's the one wearing yoga pants glaring at her phone.


How often would you like to donate?

Select an amount (USD)


©2018 by Commie Girl Industries, Inc