Pam Bondi is probably going to have to walk this statement back. The First Amendment actually protects hate speech, provided that no threat of physical violence was made against a specific individual. We already have laws against criminal threats, so there’s no need to conflate that with hate speech. You might not like someone’s advocacy of political violence or even assassination, but as long as no identifiable individual was mentioned, you can’t be prosecuted for it. At least not in the United States. And we’re all well aware of what happens in other nations when hate speech becomes a criminal offense all on its own.
“Hate speech that crosses the line into threats of violence is NOT protected by the First Amendment,” Bondi wrote. “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.”
Another less than encouraging comment from Bondi, this time over a business that did not want to print some posters for a vigil held to honor Charlie Kirk.
“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,” Bondi said during a Monday appearance on Fox News’ “Hannity.”
From the extract quoted, I do not see a problem.
Is she not making the very distinction you desire?
Hate speech in the United States cannot be directly regulated by the government due to the fundamental right to freedom of speech protected by the Constitution. While “hate speech” is not a legal term in the United States, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that most of what would qualify as hate speech in other western countries is legally protected speech under the First Amendment. In a Supreme Court case on the issue, Matal v. Tam (2017), the justices unanimously reaffirmed that there is no “hate speech” exception to the free speech rights protected by the First Amendment and that the U.S. government may not discriminate against speech on the basis of the speaker’s viewpoint.
Matt Walsh Demands AG Pam Bondi’s FIRING Immediately for Pushing “Hate Speech” Route in Charlie Kirk Assassination: “We Need the AG Focused on Taking Down Left-Wing Terror Cells, Not Prosecuting Office Depot for God’s Sake!”
“Get rid of her. Today. This is insane. Conservatives have fought for decades for the right to refuse service to anyone. We won that fight. Now Pam Bondi wants to roll it all back for no reason. The employee who didn’t print the flyer was already fired by his employer. This stuff is being handled successfully through free speech and free markets. This is totally gratuitous and pointless. We need the AG focused on bringing down the left wing terror cells, not prosecuting Office Depot for God’s sake.”
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/09/matt-walsh-demands-ag-pam-bondis-firing-immediately/
Yeah, I’m with you on that. That quote would make perfect sense if you removed the word “hate” from it. True threats, terroristic threats, intent etc. All these things are subject to evaluation by the Court. Your personal opinions, however, are not. As far as I know there still aren’t any omnipotent humans or mind reading humans walking around.
As always: I hate turnips. I hate Brussel Sprouts. And, I hate people who drive slow in the passing lane.
How dare you hate Brussel Sprouts, you evil evildoer? I think you should be force-fed delicious balsamic glazed roasted Brussel Sprouts!
I actually DO eat those, when my daughter makes them … because the glaze negates the nasty Brussel sprout taste.
OMG! Your hates and my hates are perfectly aligned. I guess we both need to be CANCELED by our “all inclusive” anti-hate betters.
PS … I hate vegans … mostly because they hate me and say “meat is murder” … hence I should be murdered … because shouldn’t they STOP a murder by murdering the perp (me)?
I hate Brussels Sprouts being misspelled.
My principle interest in Brussels surrounds beer.
Pliny … mmmmm
Remain confused, makes sense to me ,as it is.
Yes there is hate speech.
But it is not illegal,except in kleptocracies like Canada.
Where the line is crossed,is open threats of violence..
Deliberate incitement to Burn Loot Murder.
Hate speech,the rants of haters is part and parcel of free speech.
Just as the critters openly celebrating Charlie’s murder should be free to spew.
Of course being free to speak also means you are free to enjoy the consequences of doing so.
On a side note,when our Supreme Court ruled that “True was not a defence,when before a Human Rights Commission”
They really did let the thug out of the bag.
Some say “Cat” but there is no free speech in Can Ahh Duh.
How is she wrong?
I believe any speech advocating violence against anyone is illegal in the US.
(Only sometimes in Canada.)
I’m pretty sure it’s de facto hate speech.
I loathed Blackie and just wanted the idiot to go away, and he has – yes!
He and his asstronaut girlfriend can peg away in bliss.
Hate speech in the United States cannot be directly regulated by the government due to the fundamental right to freedom of speech protected by the Constitution. While “hate speech” is not a legal term in the United States, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that most of what would qualify as hate speech in other western countries is legally protected speech under the First Amendment. In a Supreme Court case on the issue, Matal v. Tam (2017), the justices unanimously reaffirmed that there is no “hate speech” exception to the free speech rights protected by the First Amendment and that the U.S. government may not discriminate against speech on the basis of the speaker’s viewpoint.
I can’t comprehend this. Nearly every hateful comment I’ve seen from the Liberal Murderati specifically mentions Charlie Kirk.
As far as priorities are concerned, I hope the first initiative is removing these people from our schools. That people of such vile nature are in daily contact with children is revolting.
Very disappointing Pam.
Meanwhile, what else has Bondi been doing since appointed?
Arrests? Investigations? Results?
Buehler? Buehler?
After much fanfare, she has basically had no results or progress, but can manage some interviews with stern language. Trump was bound to have an appointment that has failed to measure up.
I don’t think she’s smart enough to use the terms of the left in a way that harms the left, but I may be wrong.
“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,” Bondi said …
A Colorado baker went through this very same soul sucking exercise in 2012 and it’s still being litigated as far as I know.
Walsh is right, Bondi has to go, she’s an anchor.
Of course I live in a country whose justices would make Mao blush .
So there’s that.
Burton; Up here we had that ‘right to refuse service’ issue a couple of years ago with that Transvestite, Jessica Yaniv, trying to get immigrant women working in the waxing business to wax his nutsack. They said “No!” He tried the HR court route but was eventually told to sod off. *
Two issues:
1) the copy shop accepted the order, took payment, then reneged on the contract. Anyone who’s taken the most basic Commerce course understands that you can’t do that.
2) on your point, any merchant must be able to decline a customer. Government has no place in the transaction of business, other than as a watchdog over criminal activity. (ex. a contractor who takes a down payment, then disappears with the money. Or money laundering.)
* https://search.brave.com/search?q=jessica+yaniv+latest+news&summary=1&conversation=ad3abb6f3cd18c33cfbc42
There isn’t any way the Democrats could ever get Republicans to demand curbing of first amendment rights, but kill a beloved influencer on the right and it’s to hell with your rights. If Bondi isn’t fired, we can assume this is part of the trajectory to rid Americans of their rights.