. . . beep beep, pull over and get out of way First Amendment, the Administration has determined you no longer apply.

Irony? Hypocrisy? Stupidity? A trifecta?

“Hate speech does not exist legally in America. There's ugly speech. There's gross speech. There's evil speech. And ALL of it is protected by the First Amendment. Keep America free."

~ Charlie Kirk


“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."

~ Pam Bondi


What better way to honor someone’s legacy than by making a laughing stock of their own views. Despite all the platitudes, Kirk’s assassination is just a tool to be used by the Administration. Pretty pathetic.

like everything it is working only one way ... and that way is certainly at the same level of the nazi regime ... the support of the genocide made by israel and the arrests of opponents as well as the new open chase of all the so-called leftists will not end well that is a given ...

The MAGGOTS are screaming LEFT CONSPIRACY.

While they are in charge, and doing every possible trick to hide the truth!

Erasing normal daily freedoms to satisfy they craving for control!

Their hero in all his glory!

The WSJ tries to give Bondi a little help on free speech. Patel continues to screw up the investigation and make statements that are inconsistent. Bondi makes ridiculous statements about the First Amendment. I guess if you elect a clown, expect a circus.


Pam Bondi Needs a Free Speech Tutorial
The Attorney General seems to think ‘hate speech’ is illegal. Charlie Kirk knew better.
By The Editorial Board
The WSJ
Sept. 16, 2025

Discussing Kirk’s work on college campuses, Ms. Bondi mentioned the “disgusting” antisemitism on display at many universities, and so far so good. But wait. “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,” the country’s top law enforcer told a podcast. “We will absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech.”

Kirk would want a word. “My position is that even hate speech should be completely and totally allowed in our country. The most disgusting speech should absolutely be protected,” he once told a crowd. “The ACLU used to hold this viewpoint. The American Civil Liberties Union, they sued so that legitimate Nazis could march through downtown Skokie.”

Why? “As soon as you use the word ‘hate,’ that is a very subjective term,” Kirk said, in a video posted by his group in 2020. “Then all of a sudden it is in the eyes, or it is in the implementation, of whomever has the power.”

He was right, as governments around the world are proving almost daily. Armed British police recently arrested Graham Linehan, a TV sitcom writer, and reportedly questioned him about his posts on the internet, including one that read: “If a trans-identified male is in a female-only space, he is committing a violent, abusive act. Make a scene, call the cops and if all else fails, punch him in the balls.” He says it was a joke, and it’s stupid, but criminal?

Mark Rowley, London’s police commissioner, said there was “reasonable grounds to believe an offence had been committed,” since British law “dictates that a threat to punch someone from a protected group could be an offence.”

Yet he went on to criticize the government for giving police “no choice but to record such incidents as crimes when they’re reported,” adding: “I don’t believe we should be policing toxic culture wars debates and officers are currently in an impossible position.”

In an appearance this year at the Oxford Union, Kirk told British listeners: “Free speech is a birthright that you gave us, and you guys decided not to codify it, and now it’s—poof—it’s basically gone.” In other words, thank goodness for the First Amendment.

Free speech isn’t absolute in the U.S., but the exceptions are narrow, and “hate speech” isn’t one of them. The Supreme Court held in a famous 1969 case, Brandenburg v. Ohio, that the government can punish speech as incitement only if it’s directed toward, and likely to produce, “imminent lawless action.” General expressions of hate on the internet are despicable, but they aren’t cause for prosecution.

Ms. Bondi tried Tuesday morning to clean up her mess, writing on social media: “Hate speech that crosses the line into threats of violence is NOT protected by the First Amendment.” But then she incoherently mixed in everything from “violent rhetoric,” to doxxing, to calling a SWAT team to the home of a Member of Congress. The AG also didn’t recant her statement on Monday that the Justice Department might “prosecute” Office Depot or its ex-employee who refused to print a Kirk vigil poster.

Ms. Bondi hasn’t had a distinguished tenure as AG, as she too often seems to follow the latest social-media, cable-TV mood swing. But she is a law enforcer, not a social-media anger management coach, and she’s sworn to uphold the Constitution.

Maybe Ms. Bondi should quit appearing on podcasts about Charlie Kirk until she listens to some Charlie Kirk podcasts.

. . . embarrassing that this is the "head" lawyer for the US.


Pam Bondi’s First Amendment education
The attorney general backtracks after pledging to target Americans for hate speech.
September 16, 2025
The Washington Post Editorial Board

“Hate speech” is a term of art perfected by campus bureaucrats to shut down views that progressives dislike, and President Donald Trump was elected and reelected in no small part because of the left’s censorial excesses.

It was striking, then, to see a Trump official who should know better making the same mistake. “There’s free speech, and then there’s hate speech,” Attorney General Pam Bondi said on a podcast this week. “We will absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech.” Will the FBI’s hate speech unit be recruiting newly unemployed diversity, equity and inclusion administrators?

Bondi’s statement was constitutionally illiterate, but she at first resisted correcting the mistake, posting on X: “Hate speech that crosses the line into threats of violence is NOT protected by the First Amendment.” No one would disagree, but the nation’s chief law enforcement officer didn’t promise to “go after” Americans who threatened violence. She promised to go after them for hate speech, a subjective political label.

Bondi’s office eventually issued a statement acknowledging that the First Amendment is sacrosanct. “If you want to be a hateful person and simply say hateful things, that is your right to do so,” she wrote, according to Axios. “If you want to be a violent person, I will stop you.”

The Bondi flap is unusual because Republicans in the Trump era have usually rejected the kind of nonsense that the attorney general had to clean up. During last year’s presidential campaign, it was Democratic vice-presidential nominee Tim Walz who was rightly roasted after proclaiming, “There’s no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech, and especially around our democracy.”

But now parts of the right are demanding a government clampdown after Charlie Kirk’s assassination. They’d be wise to remember Kirk’s own words. “Hate speech does not exist legally in America,” he wrote in 2024. “There’s ugly speech. There’s gross speech. There’s evil speech. And ALL of it is protected by the First Amendment.” Kirk’s legacy is honored through political debate, not government censorship that he deplored.

Some people need a new optical scanner and their disk de-frag'd. Might also need a logic pathway check. It's beyond comprehension the divergence of human opinion forming. Garbage in, garbage out I guess. Some shit can't be fixed though. PC shops full of broke stuff. Same with people.

Bobster, your missive shows a well-honed mind. Gibberish.

No, perfectly well thought out due to years working with the mentally ill. You give me pause.

quote:

Originally posted by Schrodinger:
Bobster, your missive shows a well-honed mind. Gibberish.

Well, I hate Pam Blondi.

Come and get me, Pam.

I don’t think there’s any such thing as hate speech.
Speech is speech and it’s all protected under the Constitution.
There are, however, consequences to speech.
My own father once said that there is a big difference between saying “I think XXX should happen” and “I will make XXX happen”
Maybe attorneys here can parse that out.

I think there is such a thing as hate speech, but it's protected by the Constitution.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
I think there is such a thing as hate speech, but it's protected by the Constitution.

most of the other western countries aside of yours are still accepting free speech with the control of no hate towards any citizen on many protected grounds which can lead some issues in a debate and can make some free of that speech contrary to the limits made in their own country ...

quote:

Originally posted by medved:

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
I think there is such a thing as hate speech, but it's protected by the Constitution.

most of the other western countries aside of yours are still accepting free speech with the control of no hate towards any citizen on many protected grounds which can lead some issues in a debate and can make some free of that speech contrary to the limits made in their own country ...

Come again?
What the hell does that even mean?

quote:

Originally posted by Huvius:

quote:

Originally posted by medved:

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
I think there is such a thing as hate speech, but it's protected by the Constitution.

most of the other western countries aside of yours are still accepting free speech with the control of no hate towards any citizen on many protected grounds which can lead some issues in a debate and can make some free of that speech contrary to the limits made in their own country ...

Come again?
What the hell does that even mean?

if you do not understand there is not that much i can do for you. please continue your road and continue to think hate speech is right ...

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
. . . embarrassing that this is the "head" lawyer for the US.


Pam Bondi’s First Amendment education
The attorney general backtracks after pledging to target Americans for hate speech.
September 16, 2025
The Washington Post Editorial Board

“Hate speech” is a term of art perfected by campus bureaucrats to shut down views that progressives dislike, and President Donald Trump was elected and reelected in no small part because of the left’s censorial excesses.

It was striking, then, to see a Trump official who should know better making the same mistake. “There’s free speech, and then there’s hate speech,” Attorney General Pam Bondi said on a podcast this week. “We will absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech.” Will the FBI’s hate speech unit be recruiting newly unemployed diversity, equity and inclusion administrators?

Bondi’s statement was constitutionally illiterate, but she at first resisted correcting the mistake, posting on X: “Hate speech that crosses the line into threats of violence is NOT protected by the First Amendment.” No one would disagree, but the nation’s chief law enforcement officer didn’t promise to “go after” Americans who threatened violence. She promised to go after them for hate speech, a subjective political label.

Bondi’s office eventually issued a statement acknowledging that the First Amendment is sacrosanct. “If you want to be a hateful person and simply say hateful things, that is your right to do so,” she wrote, according to Axios. “If you want to be a violent person, I will stop you.”

The Bondi flap is unusual because Republicans in the Trump era have usually rejected the kind of nonsense that the attorney general had to clean up. During last year’s presidential campaign, it was Democratic vice-presidential nominee Tim Walz who was rightly roasted after proclaiming, “There’s no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech, and especially around our democracy.”

But now parts of the right are demanding a government clampdown after Charlie Kirk’s assassination. They’d be wise to remember Kirk’s own words. “Hate speech does not exist legally in America,” he wrote in 2024. “There’s ugly speech. There’s gross speech. There’s evil speech. And ALL of it is protected by the First Amendment.” Kirk’s legacy is honored through political debate, not government censorship that he deplored.

She missed the day they taught law at law school.

quote:

No, perfectly well thought out due to years working with the mentally ill. You give me pause.

I’d hate to cause you any alarm, but I fear some of it may have rubbed off…