Pam Bondi Is Really Wrong About Hate Speech

The attorney general is now getting called out by fellow conservatives.

Attorney General Pam Bondi has made quite the First Amendment-related faux pas: In a recent interview about what the federal government could do to deter political violence in the wake of Charlie Kirk's assassination, she said the federal government would "go after" anyone engaged in hate speech.

Bondi should know, however, that hate speech is vigorously protected by the First Amendment, and as such, cannot be policed.

Unfortunately, the attorney general made an illusory distinction between free speech and hate speech, implying that the latter was subject to government action.

"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," she said.

Attorney General Pam Bondi: "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…We will absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech." pic.twitter.com/Bqj6TQOGwP

— The Bulwark (@BulwarkOnline) September 16, 2025

Bondi sounds like Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, Kamala Harris' pick to be vice president, who made similar claims during the 2024 campaign—and that's a very bad thing. Both are appallingly wrong. The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that so-called hate speech falls under First Amendment protection, most recently in the 2017 case Matal v. Tam, which was decided unanimously.

After numerous commentators—including many fellow conservatives—called out Bondi, she clarified that she was referring to "hate speech that crosses the line into threats of violence." She's correct that true threats of violence against specific individuals or institutions lose First Amendment protection if they are specific enough, though general advocacy of violence is usually still protected. This kind of speech isn't called hate speech though; it's called incitement. Hate speech, on its own, is simply not a separate category of unprotected speech, from the standpoint of the Supreme Court.

In a separate interview, Bondi also suggested that employers had an obligation to fire employees for engaging in hate speech or for actions such as refusing to print pro-Kirk posters at Office Depot.

Given that conservative legal advocates have worked tirelessly to defeat public accommodation laws that clash with private entities' moral, political, or religious beliefs, many on the right were not pleased to hear Bondi adopting this position. The Daily Wire's Matt Walsh called her opinion "insane" and said that President Trump should fire her. Sen. Ted Cruz (R–Texas) similarly clarified that the First Amendment absolutely protects hate speech, while noting that individuals could still suffer professional consequences for saying cruel things about Kirk.

Ironically, Bondi could have avoided this mess had she listened more closely to one specific person: Charlie Kirk. As journalist Brad Polumbo pointed out, Kirk previously wrote on X: "Hate speech does not exist legally in America. There's ugly speech. There's gross speech. There's evil speech. And ALL of it is protected by the First Amendment. Keep America free."

Words to remember.