Former Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz Says DOJ Labeling Parents ‘Domestic Terrorists’ Is A Threat To Free Speech

Alan Dershowitz, who recently conducted an interview with the folks over at Newsmax, stated that when the Department of Justice starts to classify unruly parents who are angry and speaking out at school board meetings as “domestic terrorists,” it then becomes a threat to free speech, which is a God-given right the Founding Fathers encoded in the Constitution for protection against the government.

During his conversation on “Spicer & Co.,” Dershowitz stated, “It’s entirely inappropriate to label a peaceful protester as a domestic terrorist. All presumptions should favor free expression, free speech.”

”But we do have a right to make sure that public officials are not threatened with physical violence. And that’s the line that has to be drawn today in many colleges and universities around the country,” he went on to say during the interview.

via Newsmax:

At a Wednesday press conference, White House press secretary Jen Psaki wouldn’t say whether parents who are concerned about their children’s curriculum would be considered domestic terrorists, according to the New York Post.

When pressed by Fox News’ Peter Doocy, who asked if President Joe Biden would “support the fundamental right of parents to protest at school board meetings,” Psaki replied: “Of course, but he doesn’t stand for the fundamental right — I assume you don’t, either — for people to take violent action against members of — public servants. And that’s what the threats are about. And so, no, he doesn’t stand for that. No one should.”

Dershowitz, a former Harvard law professor, went on to stated in reference to the very controversial critical race theory: “If I were a parent, I would object to propagandizing my students in school. And they have a perfect right to do that.”

”What they don’t have the right to do, is threaten to hurt, or do violence to teachers or to administrators, and that’s a line that I would hope the Justice Department would keep clearly in mind — at the same time, always erring on the side of permitting freedom of expression, even if it’s unruly,” he concluded.