CeleryKills

I live where people will argue espresso grind sizes like case law and then check the river gauge before driving over the pass. That habit makes me suspicious of tidy slogans dressed up as history. Alan Dershowitz’s claim at RealClearPolitics’ Samizdat Gala that “the left never supported free speech; they only supported speech that supported their views” is one of those slogans. It misstates the record, flattens decades of cross‑ideological work on speech rights, and recasts a complicated civic project as a single tribe’s virtue badge (RealClearPolitics video, 2026).

What he said, and why it matters

At the gala, Carl Cannon asked why liberals on campus “turned against free speech.” Dershowitz replied that they were “never liberals,” that free speech had always been used selfishly, and that groups like the ACLU only defended speech when it suited their side (RealClearPolitics video, 2026). The moment played well for a friendly room, and it fits a political story Dershowitz has been telling lately. But history isn’t a highlight reel built for one night’s applause.

The record that refuses to disappear

Even a short list of cases blows a hole in the “never supported free speech” claim. In National Socialist Party v. Skokie (1977–78), the Supreme Court cleared the way for neo‑Nazis to march, and the ACLU took heat for defending speech most Americans despised. That wasn’t the left “liking” the message; it was a constitutional system applying rules to ugly speech because the rules matter (U.S. Reports; LII; Oyez).

A dozen years later, the Court in Texas v. Johnson held that flag burning is protected expression—even though millions were offended. Again, the point wasn’t taste; it was the First Amendment’s blunt instruction that government cannot ban speech because it is disagreeable (Justia; Constitution Center).

You can argue about the ACLU’s priorities in the social‑media era, but it is revisionism to say “never.” The Skokie saga is part of the institutional DNA and remains a public record of costly, unpopular defense of principle (ACLU retrospective, 2020).

The move from analysis to propaganda

Dershowitz’s framing also wipes out the non‑MAGA right that built much of the modern speech canon. Classic conservative and libertarian lawyers, from the flag‑burning line of cases to campus speech litigation, were not bit players. Reducing the whole lineage to “the left never meant it” is less analysis than factional marketing. Even coverage of the gala noted the event’s political tilt and the way Dershowitz tailored his remarks to that audience (Spectator, 2026).

What changed on campus isn’t proof of “never”

Yes, campus speech norms shifted. Administrative risk management, social‑media pile‑ons, and new harassment frameworks altered incentives. But a change since the 2010s does not retroactively erase 1960s–1990s case law. Equating present activism with an eternal left‑wing allergy to speech is a category error; and it ignores that every era has had its censors across the spectrum. Dershowitz himself, in a different clip from the same event, admitted “free speech for me but not for thee” is a widespread human temptation, which undermines his absolutist left‑only claim (RealClearPolitics video, 2026).

The standard that still works

Out here, my test is dull and it holds: defend speech for adversaries as well as allies; publish rules that bind everyone; audit your own side first. The reason those Skokie and flag cases keep showing up in civics classes is that they embody that standard. When someone says a whole political camp “never” supported free speech, ask for a timeline, docket numbers, and holdings. Skokie and Texas v. Johnson are not opinions—they are opinions of the Court (U.S. Reports; Justia; LII; Oyez).

So what should we learn from this moment?

Dershowitz’s pivot tells us less about the 1960s and more about 2026’s incentive structures. In a polarized media economy, it is profitable to say that only your coalition ever meant it. But the constitutional architecture we live in was built by coalitions that fought each other on policy and still formed a rough consensus on speech constraints. The archival trail is there; it just doesn’t fit a tidy narrative (RealClearPolitics video, 2026; Spectator, 2026).

I don’t need everyone to be a hero of the First Amendment. I do need claims about “never” to survive contact with the cases. If we want to keep both salmon runs and seminars alive, the discipline is the same: respect the rules that outlast the season, even when the current runs against you.

References

RealClearPolitics. “Dershowitz: The Left Never Supported Free Speech; Only When It Supported Their Views.” Video of Samizdat Gala exchange (Feb. 18, 2026).

RealClearPolitics. “Alan Dershowitz: ‘The Vast Majority Of Americans Believe In Free Speech For Me, But Not For Thee.’” Video (Feb. 13, 2026).

National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43 (1977). U.S. Reports; LII; Oyez.

ACLU. David Goldberger, “The Skokie Case: How I Came To Represent the Free Speech Rights of Nazis” (2020).

Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989). Justia; National Constitution Center.

The Spectator. “Libbing out with Alan Dershowitz at the ‘Sammies’” (Feb. 13, 2026).

United States Courts. “Facts and Case Summary – Texas v. Johnson” (educational resource).

Oyez. “Texas v. Johnson” (case summary and audio).