Alan Dershowitz Quotes

Freedom of speech is freedom to offend.

Most of us will agree that the right to say anything anywhere, no matter what the consequences, is carrying the right to free expression a bit too far. We run into controversy, however, when we try to draw the line between protected free expression and the kind of expression that should be prohibited because of the potential harm that it can do.

The First Amendment was designed to protect offensive speech, because nobody ever tries to ban the other kind.

Censorship laws are blunt instruments, not sharp scalpels. Once enacted, they are easily misapplied to merely unpopular or only marginally dangerous speech.

If there is a bedrock principle of the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.

Authoritative interpretations of the First Amendment guarantees have consistently refused to recognize an exception for any test of truth — whether administered by judges, juries, or administrative officials — and especially one that puts the burden of proving truth on the speaker.

The First Amendment is often inconvenient. But that is beside the point. Inconvenience does not absolve the government of its obligation to tolerate speech.

The intelligent defense of free speech should not rest on the notion that we must tolerate every form of speech, no matter how offensive. It's that we should lean toward greater tolerance for speech we dislike, and reserve our harshest penalties only for the worst offenders.

There is no asterisk in the Constitution that says 'except for hate speech.'

We have the First Amendment to rely on whenever an elected official tries to impinge on our rights to speak.

Hate speech and freedom of speech are two different things.

I'm a real believer in counter-speech when it comes to crazy stuff we don't like.

Hate speech can't be a part of free speech.

While I unconditionally support the First Amendment, inciting violence against others due to their political affiliation is not constitutionally protected speech.

Nowhere does our Constitution say we cannot say something about another's religion. Nowhere does our Constitution say we cannot say anything that offends someone.

Free speech should never mean hate speech.

Obviously, whenever the government is getting involved with speech, it gives me a lot of pause. I have a background as a journalist, so that's something that I take very seriously.

WikiLeaks' disclosures should be protected under the First Amendment.

I just think political correctness is a limitation on our First Amendment freedoms.

Freedom of speech should be wide open as long as it doesn't incite violence.

I think over the long run, it's better that government does not regulate the content of speech.

Freedom of speech is freedom above all for those whose views you dislike most.

We have ways to protect the public when free speech crosses over in hate speech.

Products are a form of speech, and free speech must be fiercely protected, even if we disagree with some of the voices.

Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views, even views that we profoundly disagree with. We do not do so because we support hateful speech, but because our founders understood that without such protections, the capacity of each individual to express their own views and practice their own faith may be threatened. We do so because in a diverse society, efforts to restrict speech can quickly become a tool to silence critics and oppress minorities.