Free Speech

Alan Dershowitz Sues Netflix Over Its Jeffrey Epstein Documentary


The Complaint, filed today, is long, detailed, and hard to excerpt, but here's the quick summary of the allegations, from paragraph 2:

Defendants [a] knowingly and deliberately misled Professor Dershowitz as to their intentions for his participation in the series, and

[b] maliciously and intentionally portrayed Professor Dershowitz in a defamatory manner by (i) promoting and bolstering false allegations of sexual misconduct against Professor Dershowitz, and (ii) not presenting evidence in the Netflix Epstein series that they received and agreed to present, which showed that alleged Epstein victim Virginia Giuffre, nee Roberts ("Giuffre") was "wrong, simply, wrong" (in the words of her own lawyer) to have accused Professor Dershowitz of sexual impropriety and that Professor Dershowitz did not have sex with her as she has falsely alleged.

The portion of Filthy Rich concerning Giuffre's false allegations against Professor Dershowitz presented anew those allegations and was not a report of proceedings in any litigation.

The theories include both defamation and Netflix's breach of certain promises that they allegedly made.

NEXT: Texas High Court Upholds Revenge Porn Statute,

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I’m not sure if I prefer Mr. Dershowitz suing media companies or defending murders and traitors. I mean everyone deserves a proper defense …

    One of the most wet moments I have had reading his Letters to a Lawyer book was his complete shitting on corporate lawyers and people who try to make money in the field, which, ok fine you can criticize them, but then he defends his own career completely oblivious to the fact that he is the worst form of all of that.

    1. It made you wet?

      1. We found the one person in the universe whom Dershowitz can wetten.

    2. wtf, not wet, autocorrect is dumb

      1. (we need an edit function)

  2. Dershowitz sounds a little paranoid lately.

    On the other hand, “Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t after you.”

    1. I was wondering the same thing. If he trying to save his reputation it may well be a little late. He like many flew to close to the sun and to the former President and now is trying to save himself in free fall.

      1. Yes, the left made it a project to destroy anybody who would work for Trump, in an effort to deny him things like effective legal assistance. Dersh got himself on that list, and he’s not coming off it: They’ll be hounding him for the rest of his life.

        1. Yeah, he had nothing to do with this.

          1. The left hid his checkbook so he couldn’t pay his lawyers.

            1. One can only imagine what Trump Election Litigation: Elite Strike Force would charge for its world-class, bestest ever legalling services.

        2. The left didn’t have to make it a project. The people working for Trump, and Trump himself, pretty much made that happen on their own.

          1. I have long maintained that the former President’s superpower was to corrupt people.

          2. The left didn’t have to make it a project.


            1. I notice you ignored my second sentence.

  3. Cooperating with Netflix on a show that concerns a subject in which he was a part. He is not as smart as I thought.

    1. His desire to get his face on still more television overcame his common sense. Selective editing and an agenda can be taken as a given. I watched 60 Minutes occasionally long ago, and I’d always be baffled that people would voluntarily go on the show to be eviscerated.

      1. I’ve shared your bafflement. I guess a lot of people whose jobs involve a lot of public exposure are somewhat narcissistic, and just irrationally assume they’ll somehow be an exception.

        1. It’s the same problem criminal defense lawyers have with their clients: people want to explain themselves. No matter how many times CDLs say, “Don’t talk to the police,” suspects will talk to the police.

  4. Dershowitz has the reputation — and friends — he deserves.

    What a paltry, pompous poltroon.

    1. i threw some doubloons in your direction while you pole danced for us.

  5. Hmmmm….breach of promises? I can imagine Netflix counsel saying, “Promises, what promises?” Shouldn’t that be an easy thing to verify (I assume the promises that were breached were written).

    1. Well, as the old saying goes, an oral promise is worth the paper it’s printed on. If Dershowitz wanted promises, he better have gotten them in writing. Otherwise, time for retirement.

  6. This smacks of Jeffrey MacDonald’s lawsuit against Joe McGinnis. MacDonald, while on trial for the murders of his wife and children, allowed an author, Joe McGinnis, to embed with the defense, on the expectation that McGinnis would write a book exonerating MacDonald and saying that his trial was a travesty of justice. During trial, McGinnis became convinced of MacDonald’s guilt, and wrote a book, but not the book MacDonald was expecting. MacDonald then sued for breach of contract. There was a hung jury, and McGinnis settled.

    For a thoroughly entertaining read about it, check out “The Journalist and the Murder” by Janet Malcolm.

Please to post comments