Constitutional rights face a growing threat as rising anti-Semitic violence may push the Supreme Court to prioritize security over free speech protections, warns renowned legal expert Alan Dershowitz.
At a Glance
- Alan Dershowitz predicts Supreme Court justices may soon reconsider landmark Brandenburg free speech protections amid increasing anti-Semitic violence
- Recent attacks in Boulder and Washington D.C. demonstrate how quickly inflammatory rhetoric can lead to actual violence
- The legal scholar warns against restricting speech, arguing better security measures can protect citizens without compromising constitutional rights
- Both Dershowitz and Glenn Beck express concern that a major violent incident could trigger widespread acceptance of severe censorship
Growing Trend of Violence Threatens Free Speech Protections
Harvard law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz is sounding the alarm about a potential constitutional crisis brewing in America. As anti-Semitic violence rises following the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel, Dershowitz believes the Supreme Court may soon reconsider longstanding free speech protections established in the landmark Brandenburg v. Ohio case. This shift could fundamentally alter how Americans understand their First Amendment rights, especially regarding speech that critics consider inflammatory or potentially inciting violence.
Recent incidents have highlighted the growing concern. In Boulder, Colorado, an illegal migrant attacked a pro-Israel rally with a flamethrower and Molotov cocktails. In Washington, D.C., a shooting near the Capital Jewish Museum resulted in the death of two Israeli embassy employees. These attacks follow increasing calls from some activists to “globalize the Intifada” and chants like “Palestine will be free from the river to the sea” – rhetoric that Dershowitz acknowledges as calls for violence but believes should remain protected speech under current law.
Predicting a Legal Shift Toward Security
While not advocating for restrictions on free speech, Dershowitz’s legal analysis suggests the Supreme Court is trending toward prioritizing security concerns. He notes that Brandenburg, which currently provides broad protection for speech unless it directly incites imminent lawless action, may soon be revisited. The contemporary landscape of rapid social media amplification and increasing political polarization has created conditions where inflammatory rhetoric can trigger violence much more quickly than when the Brandenburg case was decided in 1969.
“My prediction is that over the next few years, the Supreme Court will revisit the Brandenburg case and ask itself whether or not we go too far in protecting speech that incites and encourages violence.”, said Alan Dershowitz.
Dershowitz’s recent book, “The Preventive State,” directly addresses this tension between security measures and constitutional freedoms. He argues for finding alternative security solutions that don’t require restricting speech, emphasizing that Americans shouldn’t have to choose between safety and liberty. This position reflects traditional conservative values of limited government and constitutional originalism, suggesting that better security practices can protect citizens without compromising fundamental rights.
Personal Impact and Broader Implications
The threat isn’t merely theoretical for Dershowitz, who has personally experienced heightened security measures due to his pro-Israel stance. At a recent college speaking engagement, security personnel created an escape plan, stationed armed officers nearby, and installed bulletproof glass to protect him from potential copycat attacks. This firsthand experience highlights how the current climate of hostility is affecting public discourse and personal safety for those with certain viewpoints.
“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.”, said Alan Dershowitz.
Both Dershowitz and conservative commentator Glenn Beck express deep concern that a significant violent event could trigger public acceptance of severe speech restrictions. They warn that calls for a “super, duper Patriot Act that denies free speech” might gain traction following such an incident, much like how emergency measures often expand government powers during crises. For many conservatives who value limited government and constitutional rights, this potential expansion of state power represents a grave threat to American principles.
Harvard’s House of Horrors: A Woke Money Pit Masquerading as Education
Harvard University, once a beacon of intellectual rigor, has devolved into a bloated, woke hellhole, gorging on a $53 billion endowment it doesn’t deserve while milking foreign students for cash like a… pic.twitter.com/KNurY1zxSx
— Raymond Ng (@rayngls) May 28, 2025
Balancing Security Without Sacrificing Liberty
The tension between security and liberty is not new in American history. Dershowitz draws parallels to historical overreactions like the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II, warning against similar knee-jerk responses to current threats. Instead, he advocates for targeted, constitutional approaches to security, including better use of AI and technology to track individuals who pose actual threats while preserving free speech for everyone else.
For many Americans who value both security and liberty, the challenge ahead will be finding solutions that address legitimate safety concerns without undermining the constitutional principles that define American freedom. Dershowitz’s warning serves as a call to vigilance for those who believe that surrendering free speech protections, even in the name of security, threatens the very foundation of American democracy.
