Pam Bondi, the US Attorney General, may have been the source of the most incendiary controversy. She promised to go after people she says commit “hate speech” with “absolute precision.” On a recent podcast, she didn’t hold back when discussing her desire to see some action against hate speech. She specifically pointed to the horrific murder of activist Charlie Kirk as the inspiration for her remarks. These statements have led, rightly, to outrage from across the political spectrum. Because of this, citizens are demanding her resignation and raising important constitutional rights issues surrounding free speech.
Bondi’s statements drew fire last month when Bondi announced her intent to prosecute an Office Depot employee. This staffer had previously denied requests to print statement flyers for a vigil in the honor of Kirk. Taken together, this move has sparked criticism in liberal, and perhaps even more surprising, conservative realms — from conservative pundits and legal experts. Critics fear that her approach may trample on First Amendment rights. Understanding our rights These rights ensure that offensive or disagreeable speech should be protected speech.
In discussing her stance, Bondi stated, “There’s free speech and then there’s hate speech, and there is no place, especially now, especially after what happened to Charlie, in our society.” Her claim has drawn significant ire from establishment, tea party, libertarian and other elements of the rightwing establishment.
Charlie Kirk himself responded to Bondi’s comments by asserting, “Freedom of speech is sacred in our country, and we will never impede upon that right.” This expression of emotion reflects these popular fears, as they apply to the consequences of declaring some speech to be hate speech.
Legal experts have argued against the matter. Heidi Kitrosser, a law professor at Northwestern University, objected to Bondi’s assertions. She continued, “There is not an unprotected category of speech in the constitution or in the case law called ‘hate speech.’” She highlighted that Bondi’s imprecise definitions can result in retaliation against anyone speaking out on anything that the administration perceives as negative. This is a troubling omen for free expression indeed.
Not surprisingly, the backlash grows even greater when right-wing commentators weigh in to criticize Bondi’s statements. Savanah Hernandez described Bondi’s statements as misguided, while Matt Walsh called for her immediate removal from office, stating, “Get rid of her. Today. This is insane. Conservatives have fought for decades for the right to refuse service to anyone.”
Facing such a negative response, Bondi took to Twitter to explain herself. She remarked, “My intention was to speak about threats of violence that individuals incite against others,” emphasizing that she did not aim to infringe upon free speech rights.
Her efforts to clarify have done little to stop the growing backlash. Erick Erickson remarked on social media, “Our Attorney General is apparently a moron. ‘There’s free speech and then there is hate speech.’ No ma’am. That is not the law.”
Former President Donald Trump had a fierce rebuttal to criticism of his comments. Otherwise, he cautioned, comments like those could lead to punitive measures taken against anyone who dares to criticize him or his administration. He stated, “We’ll probably go after people like you because you treat me so unfairly. It’s hate. You have a lot of hate in your heart.”
The backlash over Bondi’s statements is representative of a larger national conversation about free speech and what constitutes crossing the line. Conversations around hate speech have shifted tremendously over the past few years. As advocates, we’re hoping for a substantial investigation into the impact of these definitions on our First Amendment protections.