"Why Everything Pam Bondi Said About 'Hate Speech' Is Wrong"

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (Aaron Terr & Angel Eduardo) have a good rundown. An excerpt:

While discussing the assassination of Charlie Kirk and campus antisemitism on The Katie Miller Podcast, Bondi said the Justice Department would investigate and prosecute incidents of "hate speech." While she's trying to go into damage control mode and walk back some of her mistakes, it's important to correct our nation's chief law enforcement officer on what is and isn't protected expression….

The idea that "hate speech" is a separate and unprotected category of expression is one that we, unfortunately, have had to debunk time and time again. The fact is there is no "hate speech" exception to the First Amendment, and there can't be. The Supreme Court has rejected the notion on multiple occasions, and the reasons for this should be obvious to someone in Bondi's position….

Early this morning, Bondi published a post on X, attempting to clarify her comments after a wave of negative response. Unfortunately, she only introduced more confusion:

Hate speech that crosses the line into threats of violence is NOT protected by the First Amendment. It's a crime. For far too long, we've watched the radical left normalize threats, call for assassinations, and cheer on political violence. That era is over….

However, Bondi quickly shows that she doesn't understand [the] narrow [true threats] exception, which doesn't cover abstract advocacy of violence or "cheering on" political violence — speech that is, in fact, protected ….

I have some minor quibbles here: The main one is that I wouldn't quite say, as the article does, that "you can call for someone's murder as long as you're not inciting it," since there's also a solicitation exception that may target solicitation of specific crimes (especially against specific victims) even when the "incitement" test isn't satisfied. But on balance, FIRE's statement is excellent, and Bondi's statements on this have been very far from that.

Comments

[LawTalkingGuy]

I did not know they changed their name two years ago. I guess I was vaguely aware they broadened their mission. Pretty handy that FIRE still works for both the old and new names.

[QuantumBoxCat]

Conservative states need to pass group libel laws that punish individuals who defame conservatives.

Make Beauharnais v. Illinois Great Again!!

[thesafesurfer]

Thanks to Pam for fighting fire with fire. The Left has completely co-opted the meaning of hate speech to launch unceasing attacks on their political opponents. Thank you Attorney General Bondi for meeting rhetorical fire with fire.

The "hate speech" weapon has been in play for nearly twenty years now since the 2008 election despite the academic protestations of learned legal minds. They have prevented the weaponization of the term or its real world application. Thank you Pam for dealing with reality and turning the high pressure fire hose of "hate speech" intimidation the other direction.

[Randal]

The American left has never ever ever ever attempted to prosecute hate speech. You lose.

[Darwinnie]

Pam Bondi is like Steve Martin’s carnie-character in The Jerk when he figures out “it’s a profit deal!” It does not matter if she’s right or not. It’s a profit deal!

[NvEric]

Free speech and it's definitions can be a bitch. ( not a pun )
Just because it can be said doesn't mean it should be said.
Unrestricted verbalization of protected speech can be deadly.
Speech in bad faith has always been a problem and with each day comes to the next higher level. ( inflation )
Our system demands free speech, but not all types of speech reward that system. ( degeneration )