Attorney General Pam Bondy has made several controversial statements regarding the First Amendment. During a recent discussion about preventing political violence after the assassination of Charlie Kirk, she mentioned that the government would “take” action against individuals engaged in hate speech.
It’s worth noting, however, that hate speech is largely protected under the First Amendment, making it difficult for the government to intervene in that arena.
Unfortunately, Bondy seems to conflate freedom of speech with hate speech. She remarked, “There’s freedom of speech, then there’s hate speech,” implying that the latter warrants governmental intervention.
Her comments echo sentiments made by figures like Minnesota Governor Tim Walz and Vice President Kamala Harris, which is somewhat alarming. Both have been criticized for misunderstanding the protections afforded by the Supreme Court regarding what constitutes hate speech. For example, the court unanimously ruled in the 2017 case Matal v. Tam that hate speech falls under First Amendment protections.
Many commentators, even some within conservative circles, have called out Bondy for her remarks, especially when she referenced “hate speech that crosses the lines with the threat of violence.” It’s true that threats against specific individuals or entities lose First Amendment protection if they are detailed enough, but general calls for violence are typically safeguarded. This distinction isn’t about hate speech; it’s about incitement.
Essentially, hate speech doesn’t constitute a separate, unprotected category under the law. In another interview, Bondy suggested that employers should terminate workers who engage in hate speech or refuse to support Pro-Kirk materials at places like Office Depot.
Given the vigorous efforts of conservative legal advocates opposing public accommodation laws that conflict with the beliefs of private organizations, Bondy’s stance has not been well received on the right. Daily Wire’s Matt Walsh criticized her views as “unconventional,” while former President Trump suggested she should be dismissed. Senator Ted Cruz also emphasized that the First Amendment “absolutely protects hate speech,” although he acknowledged that individuals may face professional consequences for making disparaging remarks about Kirk.
Ironically, Bondy might have avoided much of this confusion by listening more closely to Charlie Kirk himself.
As journalist Brad Polumbo noted, Kirk previously stated that hate speech isn’t legally recognized in America: “There are ugly speeches, terrible speeches, and even evil speeches. All of it is protected by the First Amendment. It keeps America free.”
Those are words worth considering.
