Backtalk C
ALAN DERSHOWITZ / GUEST COLUMNIST Free Speech Endangered
ompanies that make vote counting machines are suing Fox News, Newsmax, One America News Network, and others for defaming them. I’m advising clients in several lawsuits involv-
ing voting machines, and I’m a frequent contributor to News- max and Fox News. So, I am not unbiased. Nor am I unbiased regarding the
First Amendment, which I believe is endangered by these lawsuits. My own personal view is that the 2020 election was gener-
ally fair, and President Joe Biden was properly elected. But I am not so sure about the widespread use of machines in counting votes. My general concern about all machines is underlined by
the apparent refusal of the voting machine companies to allow experts to examine their inner workings to determine if they are susceptible to hacking in future elections. When the government delegates a governmental func-
tion like vote counting to private companies, these compa- nies must be transparent: They should not be permitted to hide behind claims of private business secrets. And the media should be allowed to challenge and criti-
cize them without fear of being subjected to expensive law- suits by giant corporations. Moreover, the media should be free to challenge the
results of any elections — even if the claims turn out to be false. I am convinced that the 2020 election was fair, but mil-
lions of voters believe, or claim to believe, otherwise. The open marketplace of ideas permits the media to give voice to dissenting views, even if they themselves disagree with them. In the Fox case, discovery has revealed that many at the
network, including owners and anchors, had serious doubts about the claims of vote fraud being espoused by some of their guests. Yet they put them on the air, and the network is now
being subject to defamation suits because of what the guests falsely claimed, and the anchors didn’t dispute. The implications of these suits for the First Amendment
rights of the network and its viewers are serious. As a result of these suits, several of the networks stopped showing guests who challenged the elections or who raised questions about the machines. Must all networks present only the majority narrative on controversial issues of national importance? Should they be permitted to present guests who honestly but wrongly believe a counter narrative? Shouldn’t the viewers be permit- ted to choose among competing narratives?
98 NEWSMAX | APRIL 2023 It is interesting to contrast these lawsuits with the lawsuit
I’m currently bringing against CNN, which is very diff erent. CNN doctored and edited tapes in which I had argued
that a president could be impeached for unlawful, illegal, or corrupt criminal behavior. Their paid commentators and employees then mali-
ciously lied, claiming that I said that a president could not be impeached even if he committed serious crimes such as extortion, bribery, or murder — the exact opposite of what I actually said.
T
he First Amendment does not protect such malicious and deliberate defamation designed to discredit individ-
uals with views diff erent from the networks. It does protect honestly held opinions which turn out to be untrue. As former Chief Justice William Rehnquist put it: “Under
the First Amendment there is no such thing as a false idea.” But there are such things as false defamatory facts that are maliciously published in an attempt to destroy the credibil- ity of a person with opposing views, which is what CNN did to me. The line between the Fox and CNN lawsuits may not
always be clear, but it is an important line to preserve. Fox is being sued for allowing opinions and ideas that are
essential to an uncensored discussion of controversial and disputed theories regarding a past presidential election, as well as future elections in which votes are to be tabulated by machines. I have accused CNN of maliciously lying about a single
recorded statement that I made in the past, concerning which their commentators deliberately and maliciously lied. This is an important distinction to maintain. We are a deeply divided nation in which passions run
high and opinions dramatically diff er. As the late Sen. Pat- rick Moynihan, D-N.Y. used to say: “Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not to their own facts.” The line between the two is also not always clear: Zealots
have wrongheaded opinions about facts. Diff erent media “report” facts diff erently. Distrust in reporting is rampant and often justifi ed. So let the open marketplace be the judge of who is right
and wrong. There is no guarantee that the marketplace will always get it right. But to paraphrase Churchill, it may be the worst method, except for all the others that have been tried over time.
Alan Dershowitz is Emeritus Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. This article is reprinted with permission of
Newsweek.com. where it first appeared.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100
