U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi has landed in hot water with Trump Supporters as well as several other sides over her recent comments targeting “hate speech.” Bondi was on The Katie Miller Podcast (a conservative show) recently, where she tried to frame out what counts as “free speech” versus “hate speech.” She did not do a great job at it, and would then say:
“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, anything, and that’s across the aisle.”
On its surface, not wanting hate speech is a good thing. Most of us can agree that it would be beneficial to eliminate it from our daily lives. However, depending on the type of hate speech you’re involved in and who you target, the federal government cannot come after you.
How did we get here? What has Bondi done since? What type of problems did this cause? We’ll break all of that down now!
How We Got Here: Charlie Kirk Controversy
A lot of Trump Supporters have been livid ever since the death of conservative activist Charlie Kirk was murdered. Most can understand why they are upset about it. However, it has led to numerous problems coming from those in the MAGA community, including bomb threats at three HBCUs the day after Kirk’s death, despite none of them having even a little to do with what happened.
There were some online who were happy about Kirk’s death. Most of these comments come from people who were often targets of Kirk, such as those from the gay and transgender communities. Along with some from Black and Hispanic communities.. Others were simply not fans of Charlie and the things he said. Regardless of why people were openly expressing happiness over his death, overwhelmingly, people on the left were against what happened.
However, Bondi felt that some people’s comments were problematic. In her view, as well as the view of others from conservative communities, the comments should be classified as hate speech.
How We Got Here: Liberal Displeasure Over Trump Administration
Currently, the Trump Administration is doing countless things that many liberals are against. Trump himself seems to be causing several issues, directly violating laws. Meanwhile, a Republican Congress is allowing it to happen. This includes actions like not releasing the Epstein Files, which has upset both sides regarding the administration.
Liberals have been more than happy to express their hatred of this administration across every social media platform available. Bondi has been the target of some of this, but often the target is the entire administration. In her view, it might be considered hate speech for people to say some of the things they have. Trump has been trying to find a way to legally break up protests and silence dissent in any way he can. Using Bondi to push the “hate speech” angle is just one of those concepts.
Pam Bondi Tries To Walk It Back #1
Of course, Pam Bondi knew she had made a significant mistake after her comments went live. She has since attempted to walk them back, but did not do a great job. Her office sent a statement to the media to clarify her comments from before.
In it, she claims that she was talking about criminal groups or those who incite violence. Not those who might say hateful things. Such as those who said less than favorable things about the murder of Charlie Kirk. It’s likely Bondi initially spoke out the way she did because Charlie was a friend of hers, and she was possibly upset by the hateful comments she saw. Yet that doesn’t erase her previous comments, and this clarification still has problems.
Pam Bondi Tries To Walk It Back #2
While her statement to the press was already an issue, she later said on her Twitter/X account, writing:
“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.”
What might be perking up ears across the country right now is that she claims this is a “radical left” problem. It simply isn’t historically. In fact, more threats of violence online are dominated by those on the right. Most of those people have not been targeted by the federal government. Regardless of the side you’re on politically, we give such extreme freedom as a country. So much so that some who did commit violent acts previously claimed they would or wanted to, but law enforcement did nothing.
Bondi Doubles Down On Problems
Pam Bondi seems to struggle with the whole “stop talking” thing. She went on Fox News and yet again caused problems for herself. She said that employers actually had an “obligation” to fire any employee who spoke ill of conservatives, claiming:
“You need to look at people who are saying horrible things. And they shouldn’t be working with you. Businesses cannot discriminate. If you wanna go in and print posters with Charlie’s pictures on them for a vigil, you have to let them do that. We can prosecute you for that.”
Everything she said here is wrong. There is no “legal obligation” to get rid of any employee for their speech. It is up to the employer. Businesses also cannot use discrimination to fire someone, which includes one’s political affiliation. While employers can fire a person for what they say, this usually involves the business itself.
Pam Bondi Clearly Has Bias On Lock
What might make Pam Bondi so bad is that she appears to be strongly opposed to anyone criticizing her or those on her side. Meanwhile, she is more than happy to allow President Trump to call his political enemies every name in the book, such as “vermin” and “enemies within.” She is also perfectly fine with Trump’s claims to want to imprison his opponents.
Heck, Trump joked about Paul Pelosi being attacked as well as putting Liz Cheney in front of a firing squad. Did Bondi say anything about those comments? Nope. Not even a careless whisper.
Bondi Further Defends Herself
Bondi has been trying to defend her words for days now. This involves attempting to break down the differences between what is considered “free speech” and what is against the law. One example she gave was that “any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another” is illegal, even across state borders. She also spoke about the Postal Service not sending out threats and a law about threatening to assault family members of public officials.
She then said:
“You cannot call for someone’s murder [or] swat a Member of Congress. You cannot dox a conservative family and think it will be brushed off as ‘free speech.’ These acts are punishable crimes, and every single threat will be met with the full force of the law. Free speech protects ideas, debate, even dissent, but it does NOT and will NEVER protect violence.”
The Problem With Her Defense
While what she said was true that you cannot threaten to kidnap or injure someone, this much is known. Yet no one was saying that recently other than the far right. For reference, that is the side SHE is on.
It’s true that you cannot call for someone’s murder or dox people with the protection of free speech. It is true there are limitations. However, President Trump is connected to many incidents where he asked people to harm or steal from others. Even if you think he had no role in the January 6th incident, he did technically call for violence on that day during his speech.
Therefore, her entire defense here is just a case of trying to protect herself. However, she would be better off avoiding discussing this.
Conservative Pushback
She really upset a lot of people on the left but perhaps even more on the right. Several notable conservative media personalities attacked Pam Bondi for all of this.
Daily Wire host Matt Walsh wrote on his Twitter/X account: “obviously shouldn’t be any legal repercussions for ‘hate speech.'”
Meanwhile Erick Erickson, a conservative talkshow host claimed: “our attorney general is apparently a moron.”
Trump’s Word, Bondi’s Voice
Many feel, however, that this was not exactly Pam Bondi saying all of this. Rather, she was essentially speaking Donald Trump’s thoughts and attempting to make them make sense. She couldn’t, but the attempt was there at least. We know he has been trying to silence anyone he does not like, and using the realm of “hate speech” to do that is an option.
It’s true, of course, that free speech only goes so far. However, it extends quite a lot. Making it one of the most protected things we have as Americans. Unless, of course, the Supreme Court loses its backbone and sides with someone in office that thinks of himself as a dictator. However, nothing like that exists today in America, right?
“Free Speech”
According to the United States Constitution, all American citizens as well as immigrants to this country, have the right to “free speech.” This part of the first amendment of the constitution.
Included in this amendment is the freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and the right to petition the government. While it is true that one’s words can get them fired from their job or possibly lose friends, the most important part is that the government cannot imprison you for your words.
Well, again, that is up to a point. Most agree that making threats or causing harm with your words, such as doxing or swating, is wrong. This is illegal. Hate speech, for as bad as it is, sadly is protected as a form of speech one has the right to say.
The Trump Administration Isn’t A Fan
The Trump Administration has been trying to limit the protection our first amendment offers ever since he took office in his second term. They have mostly been going after any immigrant that writes something the administration dislikes or takes part in protests they do not like. VISAs have been revoked for several people over this, which is most certainly illegal.
However, this administration has done so many illegal things that they have clogged up the courts. Causing many people here legally with their VISA to be in a state of limbo. Many of them even having due process taken from them throughout all of this, also illegal
Trump has also taken billions of dollars away from universities as leverage, too. He has been threatening them to stop protests by their students or he won’t release the money. Even those that relented to all of this have yet to get the money back they were promised or they have only seen a small portion of it.
Trump has also used the National Guard to essentially stop protests too, particularly in California. Everything was tame and working fine until the National Guard were, you guessed it, illegally deployed.
Therefore, this administration does not believe in freedom of speech. Trump only wants to remove any voice from broadcasting that disagrees with him, and wants to stop anyone from protesting him. This is literal authoritarian ideology.