Loading the Elevenlabs Text to Speech AudioNative Player…
Attorney General Pam Bondi suggested this week that the government, in response to the assassination of Charlie Kirk last Wednesday, may start to target “hate speech.” In a podcast interview with Katie Miller, the AG stated that hate speech isn’t free speech and that her office may prosecute those who cross the line. “We will absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech, anything—and that’s across the aisle,” Bondi declared, adding that we can’t allow “that hate speech in the world in which we live.”
Her comments outraged many on the right, who correctly see “hate speech” as a dubious concept engineered to suppress conservative views. It’s also an unconstitutional concept, as our laws recognize hate speech as free speech protected by the First Amendment. This was affirmed by Charlie Kirk himself. “Hate speech does not exist legally in America,” he once wrote. “There’s ugly speech. There’s gross speech. There’s evil speech. And ALL of it is protected by the First Amendment.”
Bondi responded to the backlash with a lengthy X post explaining her position. In the post, she stressed that she wants to go after speech that leads to violence:
You cannot call for someone’s murder. You cannot 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.
If Bondi hadn’t described this as “hate speech,” her post would’ve gotten a more receptive audience. Most of her statement is aligned with the general right-wing consensus of what should happen in response to Charlie Kirk’s murder. There’s a large demand to go after left-wing speech that encourages violence. It’s a view expressed by Vice President J.D. Vance, White House Deputy Chief of State Stephen Miller, and many others. The difference is that Bondi called it “hate speech.”
The AG eventually issued a statement saying the Justice Department would not target individuals over this noxious idea.
This event could be interpreted as a mere flub on the part of a government official prone to such gaffes. But it’s more than that. Her comments should make the right ponder the possibilities of what might happen if the government begins arresting waves of leftists for unsavory speech that allegedly could lead to violence and how this standard could easily be used against the right.
In the interview with Katie Miller, Bondi highlights campus antisemitism as one of her concerns with hate speech and how the government is using its power to crack down on it. She also made sure to point out that they want to target hate speech “across the aisle,” bringing up the arson of Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro’s house as an example. It’s implied Shapiro was targeted by a right-winger, when in fact the arson was the work of a leftist.
One could reasonably conclude that Bondi’s DOJ intends to target right-wingers with this standard. That would absolutely set a precedent for Democratic administrations to follow, empowering the left to persecute conservatives for merely endorsing immigration restriction or criticizing Black Lives Matter.
It’s necessary to be careful and clear about how the government responds to left-wing extremism. The Trump administration is right to declare Antifa a domestic terror group and should go after any organizations that aid its efforts. It should also investigate the far-left Discord chats that inspire deranged individuals to embrace violence. But the admin should avoid setting a standard that could be exploited to target “hate speech.”
While nearly all rightists are united against hate speech laws, there is a growing tendency to want some speech restrictions. There’s the aforementioned effort to suppress alleged antisemitism on college campuses. There was widespread right-wing support for a ban on flag burning when President Donald Trump issued an executive order on the matter last month. A few commentators even entertain the idea of bringing back blasphemy laws. Prominent voices either implicitly or explicitly state that greater protection of free speech is a “leftist” desire.
These sentiments contrast sharply with the administration’s efforts to counter draconian speech laws in Europe. Trump and senior cabinet members routinely pillory the UK, Germany, and other European states for censoring and arresting its citizens for opposing mass immigration. It’s nonsensical to push for any form of speech restriction in the U.S. while opposing these same measures in the EU.
There’s an apparent feeling that the right now has the social capital and institutional power to implement our own speech codes. That’s presumptuous, to say the least. Many of the people who will be interpreting these measures are liberal bureaucrats and officials. Let’s say we do counter “violent speech.” In the eyes of a liberal, demanding a strong response to riots or even “misgendering” a trans individual could count as threats of violence. Any limitation on free speech would be a gift to the left. Thanks to their power in elite institutions and within the administrative state, they can interpret these laws as they see fit. It would make it much easier to have de facto hate speech laws, even if the law says we have no such thing.
Free speech is good for the right. It’s why the administration wants it to spread to Europe. Trump was able to win the 2024 election in large part due to the freer state of social media. The 47th president didn’t have to worry about his campaign posts being taken down or his supporters banned like in 2020. Free speech reigned once more on the big platforms, which allowed the right to triumph in the election. The right is now able to broadcast its views to millions without the threat of censorship or government heavy-handedness. That’s something we should preserve rather than sacrifice on behalf of a misguided assumption that new speech restrictions will only be used against the left.
Anti-speech measures would also likely alienate the public. Millions of Americans rated free speech as one of their most important issues in the 2024 election. Polls regularly show Americans cherish their rights to free expression. A major reason why Americans turned on woke is because it limited what they could say and aimed to control what they think. It was an intrusive force that violated their liberty. Cultural libertarianism defines the mood of the nation. It would be hard to advocate for speech laws that solely target the left in this environment.
Safeguarding free speech would not be a loss for conservatives. Right-wing ideas would still prevail in the marketplace of ideas, as they do now. It’s better to preserve this freedom than to give it up.
Conservatives are right to demand action against left-wing extremism. There is plenty that the government can do to curb this menace without jeopardizing our right to free expression. It’s imperative to do what’s necessary without inadvertently creating hate speech laws.