Talk:Alan Dershowitz

	This United States politics related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

This article contains information about one or more living persons. Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats. Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed. If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

"Dershowitz himself defended alleged JDL terrorists"

The casual reader who has no idea what the JDL is will not get anything from this sentence. Peace. AgingHippie (talk)

I can fix that.---Mona- (talk) 19:50, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Is he really as bad as the article makes him out to be?

The article seems to be an unmitigated attack on him. Is he really that bad? Evil Zionist (talk) 14:28, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

No. He has committed only one actual sin according to the RW: Not to bash Israel as they do. All the other stuff would've been cast aside under any number of pretexts if only he'd been as anti-Israel as they are.--95.208.248.45 (talk) 22:14, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, it's beyond that, as you see on the page. He defends torture and has campaigned against outspoken critics. That isn't just "not bashing Israel".Mcc1789 (talk) 08:11, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

So defplatforming is only kosher, if you do it, eh?--95.208.248.45 (talk) 18:01, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, you have no idea what my view is on deplatforming. Trying to deny someone an academic position is more than that too.Mcc1789 (talk) 18:13, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm talking about the position that seems to be prevalent her on the page judging by the article on deplatforming, not the position of some pseudonymous user I never met before. And what Dershowitz did WAS deplatforming, with the only difference being that the usual deplatforming-happy crowd didn't agree with that and rediscovered academic freedom all of a sudden.--95.208.248.45 (talk) 22:07, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

There, it's gone. RoninMacbeth (talk) 22:38, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

That's not what "deplatforming" has ever meant. Nor is it defined that way here. It means denying people a forum to speak, or disinviting them. Not denying them academic positions. I don't think that should be removed.Mcc1789 (talk) 05:05, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Then feel free to add it back in. To be honest, I think this article could use a lot more information than it currently has. RoninMacbeth (talk) 06:19, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Okay. I agree, it could definitely use more.Mcc1789 (talk) 04:27, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

That's all mere technicalities that have not much to do with the practice of deplattforming.--95.208.248.45 (talk) 16:12, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

How is it deplatforming then if it doesn't have much to do with it?Mcc1789 (talk) 08:05, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Is Dershowitz as bad as this article makes him out to be? No, he's much worse. The article doesn't even mention his deep ties to infamous pedophile sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, or the fact that one of Epstein's victims accuses Dershowitz of raping her. 108.82.55.43 (talk) 18:13, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

I've added that now. Mcc1789 (talk) 03:28, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Not to mention his absurd defence of Trump during the impeachment hearings in the Senate (added hypocrisy comes from the fact that Dershowitz used to be a Trump critic). Dershowitz’s argument, that a US president can basically do anything to get himself elected as long as (s)he believes this election to be in the public’s interest ("If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.") is patently absurd and would obviously render any constitutional checks on presidential powers meaningless. That Dershowitz portrayed his coming aboard the Trump impeachment legal team as a defence of the institution of the presidency is even more ridiculous, unless you hold the clearly unconstitutional view that the office of POTUS is basically that of an absolute monarch, as per the Nixonian dictum: “When the president does it, it’s not illegal”. ScepticWombat (talk) 07:23, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Apparently suddenly

...using the slippery slope fallacy becomes kosher and deplatforming becomes treyf, if it's about hitting people with pro-Israel opinion over the head. You people even suddenly discover your love for the 2nd amendment.--95.208.248.45 (talk) 22:22, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

First off, the 2nd Amendment thing: We only mention that he did say that. Just because we mention it doesn't mean we hold it against him. Second, if we removed the Israel-related stuff, most of our criticisms of him would still be in line with our actual positions. Admittedly, we should probably add his positions on police misconduct, but I doubt that's why you're here. RoninMacbeth (talk) 22:32, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Hypocrisy and special pleading

"Dershowitz's hypocrisy is at least two-fold: (1) Dershowitz himself defended alleged Jewish Defense League terrorists in court on the grounds that their Constitutional rights had been violated[5] and (2) Dershowitz bills himself as a civil liberties lawyer."

The appeal to hypocrisy is a common informal fallacy. In the first instance, Dershowitz is guilty of special pleading. The second example is not relevant as civil liberties are in a constant state of conflict and special pleading, while fallacious, is considered an essential procedure in the practice of English Common Law.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:51, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

They aren't saying he's wrong by citing his hypocrisy-it's criticism. As for special pleading, that's valid for lawyers. It isn't if you're advocating policy, which is what he did here.Mcc1789 (talk) 06:41, 30 November 2018 (UTC)