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."
And she had to clarify it after pushback from a lot including republicans.
Hate speech that crosses the line into threats of violence is NOT protected by the First Amendment. 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. Under 18 U.S.C. § 875(c), it is a federal crime to transmit “any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another.” Likewise, 18 U.S.C. § 876 and 18 U.S.C. § 115 make it a felony to threaten public officials, members of Congress, or their families. 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. Free speech protects ideas, debate, even dissent but it does NOT and will NEVER protect violence. It is clear this violent rhetoric is designed to silence others from voicing conservative ideals. We will never be silenced. Not for our families, not for our freedoms, and never for Charlie. His legacy will not be erased by fear or intimidation. Attorney General Pamela Bondi on X: "Hate speech that crosses the line into threats of violence is NOT protected by the First Amendment. 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. Under 18 U.S.C. §" / X
However I can still take issue with this. With all the calls to "lower the temperature" why is it always aimed at the "other side" while ignoring what their side is doing?
Like all rights protected under the constitution, this is not absolute either. It does not extend to speech that falls into certain unprotected categories, such as true threats, incitement to immediate unlawful violence, defamation, harassment, or obscenity.
Sorry, isn't that a moving goalpost? You said it's protected under the Constitution and now it's never illegal just because it's hate speech. I agree that hate speech is an invented category and I also agree that it's part of free speech. But like all Amendments to the Constitution, it's not an absolute right. I even laid out where it's not protected.
I agree that her approach is wrong. My real issue is that we have politicians and pundits on both sides calling to "lower the heat" while only throwing it at the "other" side.
It’s the same point. Nothing is illegal just because it’s “hate speech” and hate speech is protected under the constitution. You can call me whatever hateful slur you want, and you’ll be protected from any criminal liability by the constitution for using that slur.
Speech can be criminalized, but whether it’s been categorized as “hate speech” is irrelevant to its legality. “Let’s go murder that nice looking gentlemen over there” could be considered incitement and thus illegal, “Look at that (insert string of racial slurs, classic hate speech), I don’t like him. “ Is perfectly legal.
What many people consider to be “Hate speech” is in most cases protected free speech under the Constitution.
So when is it not protected? IIRC, it’s when it advocates violence.
For example a person has a right to say that members of a particular racial, religious or ethnic group are all stupid, evil, inferior etc. etc. That’s actually protected. But if you advocated violence against them, that’s not protected free speech!
What many people consider to be “Hate speech” is in most cases protected free speech under the Constitution.
So when is it not protected? IIRC, it’s when it advocates violence.
For example a person has a right to say that members of a particular racial, religious or ethnic group are all stupid, evil, inferior etc. etc. That’s actually protected. But if you advocated violence against them, that’s not protected free speech!
Sorry to disappoint, but as you can see from the comments below that's not happening. It's a common misconception that some have after filling their heads with moronic rightwing conservative media victim rhetoric.
ppoint, but as you can see from the comments below that's not happening
It was sarcastic. I never expected the Democratic politicians and their cheerleaders who advocate for hate speech regulation by the government to support them under a Republican DOJ. That's when they support free speech. It's a joke because those people have no principle other than punishing those they disagree with.
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."
Okay... so if you're going after "anyone" that means you'll go after Republicans who use inflammatory hate speech, right?
"I always say, we have two enemies," Trump said, adding: "We have the outside enemy, and then we have the enemy from within, and the enemy from within, in my opinion, is more dangerous than China, Russia and all these countries."
“They’re Marxists and communists and fascists, and they’re sick,” Trump added. “We have China, we have Russia, we have all these countries. If you have a smart president, they can all be handled. The more difficult are, you know, the Pelosis, these people, they’re so sick and they’re so evil,” Trump said.
Sounds pretty damn hateful to me, go get 'em Bondi!
I apologize for not including /s at the end. I completely support the right of anyone to express their opinions about anyone else. Whether it's a cartoon of Mohammad or Trump calling Democrats evil, I support free speech right up to the point of saying "and let's go after those evil people!". Inciting violent action against anyone else is illegal, as is lying about someone (libel, slander), but expressing one's opinion, even if unpopular, should forever be enshrined in our constitution and nations laws.
Hate speech is a made-up term created by stupid intolerant fucktards who can't stand any dissenting opinions, The answer to speech you don't like is more speech, not a bullet to the neck you intolerant stupid bastards.
Pam Bondi is wrong here, unless the speech is purposefully used to create a riot or other illegal actions, then it must be protected, no matter how ignorant it might be.
This is another attempt to intimidate people they disagree with. It’s what this administration does. All that BS talk on the campaign trail about not using DoJ as a political weapon, but in reality, it’s all they do.
No measure, however far astray it falls from constitutional and lawful, will ever be enough for the partisans to think that "their guy" actually isn't trying to be a fascistic dictator.
"Free speech is only good for us. Then we achieve power and the laws, the constitution, is over" is the paraphrased mantra of MAGA.
If, there are any MAGA who think that this is a bridge too far, it's not too late to turn the ship of state around.
Just in refresher. When prompted "Could you list the main characteristics of a fascist government," chatGPT replied
Here are the main characteristics commonly associated with fascist governments:
---
1. Authoritarian Leadership
A single leader (often a dictator) holds centralized power.
Personal loyalty to the leader is prioritized over institutions.
Dissent against the leader is treated as a threat to the state.
---
2. Nationalism and Myth of Unity
Emphasis on strong nationalism, often with a mythologized past or destiny.
Citizens are urged to identify completely with the nation.
Minorities or “outsiders” are treated as threats to national purity.
---
3. Militarism and Violence
Glorification of the military and war as unifying forces.
Use of violence, paramilitary groups, or secret police to suppress opposition.
Expansionist or imperial ambitions are common.
---
4. Suppression of Opposition
Political parties, unions, or organizations outside the ruling movement are banned or heavily controlled.
Media is censored, propaganda is widespread.
Critics are jailed, exiled, or eliminated.
---
5. Corporatism and Controlled Economy
Economy is not fully private or fully state-owned; rather, it is controlled in partnership between the state and key corporations.
Independent labor unions are replaced by state-controlled organizations.
Economic policies prioritize national strength over individual or market freedoms.
---
6. Cult of Tradition and Anti-Intellectualism
Appeals to cultural or religious traditions as sources of legitimacy.
Rejection of modernist, liberal, or pluralist ideas.
Intellectuals, academics, or artists who challenge the state are targeted.
---
7. Propaganda and Mass Mobilization
Heavy use of propaganda to shape public opinion.
Use of rallies, symbols, and slogans to unify the population.
The state seeks to control education, art, and public disdiscourse.
---
8. Rigid Social Hierarchies
Promotion of strict gender roles and traditional family structures.
Emphasis on obedience, discipline, and hierarchy in all aspects of life.
Discrimination against minorities (ethnic, religious, sexual, or political) is justified as protecting the nation.
---
9. Fusion of State and Identity
The state presents itself as the sole legitimate embodiment of the people.
Individual rights are subordinated to the collective will of the nation.
The leader and the state are portrayed as inseparable.
---
👉 In short: fascism blends authoritarian power, extreme nationalism, militarism, suppression of dissent, and a state-directed but not fully socialist economy — all under the banner of unity and strength.
While the current administration does not yet check all of the boxes, it appears to be trying to quickly get most of them. Some people are going to sit around and wait until they check all of them.
I don't think our "friends" on the right are fascists, they are authoritarian. And I say they're not fascists, because at heart they are still capitalists.
Trump is fascist. I know it's a loaded term, but if you go through the above list and highlight the places where the current administration is making moves to achieve those characteristics, you will find a great many of them are highlighted.
1. Authoritarian Leadership
A single leader (often a dictator) holds centralized power.
Personal loyalty to the leader is prioritized over institutions.
Dissent against the leader is treated as a threat to the state.
---
2. Nationalism and Myth of Unity
Emphasis on strong nationalism, often with a mythologized past or destiny.
Citizens are urged to identify completely with the nation.
Minorities or “outsiders” are treated as threats to national purity.
---
3. Militarism and Violence
Glorification of the military and war as unifying forces.
Use of violence, paramilitary groups, or secret police to suppress opposition.
Expansionist or imperial ambitions are common.
---
4. Suppression of Opposition
Political parties, unions, or organizations outside the ruling movement are banned or heavily controlled.
Media is censored, propaganda is widespread.
Critics are jailed, exiled, or eliminated.
---
5. Corporatism and Controlled Economy
Economy is not fully private or fully state-owned; rather, it is controlled in partnership between the state and key corporations.
Independent labor unions are replaced by state-controlled organizations.
Economic policies prioritize national strength over individual or market freedoms.
---
6. Cult of Tradition and Anti-Intellectualism
Appeals to cultural or religious traditions as sources of legitimacy.
Rejection of modernist, liberal, or pluralist ideas.
Intellectuals, academics, or artists who challenge the state are targeted.
---
7. Propaganda and Mass Mobilization
Heavy use of propaganda to shape public opinion.
Use of rallies, symbols, and slogans to unify the population.
The state seeks to control education, art, and public disdiscourse.
---
8. Rigid Social Hierarchies
Promotion of strict gender roles and traditional family structures.
Emphasis on obedience, discipline, and hierarchy in all aspects of life.
Discrimination against minorities (ethnic, religious, sexual, or political) is justified as protecting the nation.
---
9. Fusion of State and Identity
The state presents itself as the sole legitimate embodiment of the people.
Individual rights are subordinated to the collective will of the nation.
The leader and the state are portrayed as inseparable.
A single leader (often a dictator) holds centralized power.
This one is a bane to our systems of governance/governmental structure. Whereas it has been the conservative perspective/worldview that federalism is to be regarded higher than our federal system of centralization. . . we now see how conservatives can shift when it suits their purposes to attempt to take over, manipulate, and control those they view as and have made adversaries within their own country.
That last sentence above should teach us all a lesson about why it is naïve (and STUPID) for this country to talk and write about its two leading political parties as being natural enemies. We set ourselves up for all this in-fighting we feel and touch everyday! It was a stupid thing for politicians on both sides to let happen and fail to thwart! And so, our people are reaping the consequences as we are a 'worsening' divided country from the top down primarily because of it.
Our governmental systems has components (states-plural, central government) which by their nature do not permit one grouping of leaders to render all decisions and judgements without oversight discussions and protections.
Yet, we see Trump, MAGA supporters-including a 'bloc' of conservative republican congresspersons, acting to REMOVE state authority indirectly and shift relatively all control to the President of the United States. This is unconstitutional.
The constitution is really just a piece of (aging) paper, if we do not support it. And, its ideas will simply be abstracts and tattering thoughts of remembrances if we do not enforce its separations of powers!
There is a 'ready' made problem that Trump and Bondi are forgetting or never knew. . . if you ban hate speech. . . it goes underground. . .may even burrow deeper underground. . .and just like air freshers that beautifully scent the surrounding air. . . the sickness in the air will remain infectious and contaminate surfaces and yes people. And when you see it; hear about it; will be when you feel it making harmful contact!
FOX news host on the air literally advocated for the murder of homeless people and he keeps his job.
I guess hate speech is okay including violent speech advocating the death of the homeless if it's a right-wing outlet and a far right wing pundit as long as a meager apology is offered.
Can Jimmy Kimmel just do the same thing FOX did, the same thing the FOX host did, can't Kimmel just apologize?
What Jimmy Kimmel said was nowhere near the level of hate or violence coming from FOX hosts.
The youth are literally watching and 'acting out' on what they see and feel from the adults in this nation. Including those adults standing around holding their hands and doing nothing to develop and provide a remedy for what is ailing our nation! Think about it, all of this insult/offend/defeat culture is giving the youth PTSD and they are using it to pick up guns and weapons on their own volition. To fight for themselves without the foreknowledge of adults!
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Bondi with outreach to the left, adopting their theory of the First Amendment.
I'm sure they'll celebrate this.
I have to agree with that.
Hate speech is mostly opinion to be defined by whoever is in power.
Just take the left's cue and deem all speech you do not like as violence, then you can charge them with inciting violence toward someone.
Or whoever THINKS has power.
And she had to clarify it after pushback from a lot including republicans.
However I can still take issue with this. With all the calls to "lower the temperature" why is it always aimed at the "other side" while ignoring what their side is doing?
She's still wrong. Hate speech is protected under the constitution.
Like all rights protected under the constitution, this is not absolute either. It does not extend to speech that falls into certain unprotected categories, such as true threats, incitement to immediate unlawful violence, defamation, harassment, or obscenity.
Hate speech is never illegal just because it’s hate speech. it’s a meaningless, invented category that has no legal existence.
Sorry, isn't that a moving goalpost? You said it's protected under the Constitution and now it's never illegal just because it's hate speech. I agree that hate speech is an invented category and I also agree that it's part of free speech. But like all Amendments to the Constitution, it's not an absolute right. I even laid out where it's not protected.
I agree that her approach is wrong. My real issue is that we have politicians and pundits on both sides calling to "lower the heat" while only throwing it at the "other" side.
It’s the same point. Nothing is illegal just because it’s “hate speech” and hate speech is protected under the constitution. You can call me whatever hateful slur you want, and you’ll be protected from any criminal liability by the constitution for using that slur.
Speech can be criminalized, but whether it’s been categorized as “hate speech” is irrelevant to its legality. “Let’s go murder that nice looking gentlemen over there” could be considered incitement and thus illegal, “Look at that (insert string of racial slurs, classic hate speech), I don’t like him. “ Is perfectly legal.
What many people consider to be “Hate speech” is in most cases protected free speech under the Constitution.
So when is it not protected? IIRC, it’s when it advocates violence.
For example a person has a right to say that members of a particular racial, religious or ethnic group are all stupid, evil, inferior etc. etc. That’s actually protected. But if you advocated violence against them, that’s not protected free speech!
And while many people use the phrase “Hate Speech”, as it’s been pointed out here,IIRC that’s not a legally recognized term.
Yeah, that's what I said up in 1.1.5.
Sorry to disappoint, but as you can see from the comments below that's not happening. It's a common misconception that some have after filling their heads with moronic rightwing conservative media victim rhetoric.
It was sarcastic. I never expected the Democratic politicians and their cheerleaders who advocate for hate speech regulation by the government to support them under a Republican DOJ. That's when they support free speech. It's a joke because those people have no principle other than punishing those they disagree with.
Okay... so if you're going after "anyone" that means you'll go after Republicans who use inflammatory hate speech, right?
Sounds pretty damn hateful to me, go get 'em Bondi!
Read the first two comments. We are all on the same side, right?
No laws against speech, right?
I apologize for not including /s at the end. I completely support the right of anyone to express their opinions about anyone else. Whether it's a cartoon of Mohammad or Trump calling Democrats evil, I support free speech right up to the point of saying "and let's go after those evil people!". Inciting violent action against anyone else is illegal, as is lying about someone (libel, slander), but expressing one's opinion, even if unpopular, should forever be enshrined in our constitution and nations laws.
Is she going to indict Charlie Kirk posthumously ?
Maybe she'll start with Biden
He is more in tune with racist speech. Maybe that is included in the hate speech category.
With few exceptions, nobody tried to use race more that old Joe Biden.
What hate speech did he speak?
They'll edit what he said and then prosecute him.
Bondi has elevated sycophancy and revenge to being virtues found in a box of Cracker Jacks.
In all seriousness, who will decide what is hate speech? Pam Bondi, Stephen Miller, and Donald Trump ?
Or Maxine Watters, Hakeem Jeffries, Bernie, Fauxcahontas, Rachel Maddow, Stephen Colbert, AOC, Pressley, Crockett, Ohmar...........................?
I hate speech! Done.
That's the point and always has been the point.
Of course, I expect many progressives will only oppose "hate speech" prosecutions when they don't control the DOJ.
I've have been asking that for years.[✘]
Hate speech is a made-up term created by stupid intolerant fucktards who can't stand any dissenting opinions, The answer to speech you don't like is more speech, not a bullet to the neck you intolerant stupid bastards.
Pam Bondi is wrong here, unless the speech is purposefully used to create a riot or other illegal actions, then it must be protected, no matter how ignorant it might be.
By George, we agree on something !
This is another attempt to intimidate people they disagree with. It’s what this administration does. All that BS talk on the campaign trail about not using DoJ as a political weapon, but in reality, it’s all they do.
I can agree with the first sentence, but the second sentence is all partisan bullshit. The correct way to say it is
"It's what all recent administrations have done". We've seen it for several administrations now and to ignore it is to be willfully blind.
Do you remember when democrats came back from all those town halls?
Democrats Say Voters Want Blood to Stop Trump, Literally
A link from Red Voice Media ... oh lucky day to hear from a self-proclaimed 'news' outlet compromising of a CEO and, gasp, one other employee.
which one gets to scrub the toilet?
If you read the article, you would have seen that the info came from an Axios article.
This is really humorous, in gallows kind of way.
No measure, however far astray it falls from constitutional and lawful, will ever be enough for the partisans to think that "their guy" actually isn't trying to be a fascistic dictator.
"Free speech is only good for us. Then we achieve power and the laws, the constitution, is over" is the paraphrased mantra of MAGA.
If, there are any MAGA who think that this is a bridge too far, it's not too late to turn the ship of state around.
Just in refresher. When prompted "Could you list the main characteristics of a fascist government," chatGPT replied
While the current administration does not yet check all of the boxes, it appears to be trying to quickly get most of them. Some people are going to sit around and wait until they check all of them.
I don't think our "friends" on the right are fascists, they are authoritarian. And I say they're not fascists, because at heart they are still capitalists.
Unless they've got me fooled
Careful, they may take away your liberal card.
Trump is fascist. I know it's a loaded term, but if you go through the above list and highlight the places where the current administration is making moves to achieve those characteristics, you will find a great many of them are highlighted.
Do all the boxes need to be checked?
Oh, think trmp has fascist tendencies. But I do think most of our "friends" on the right arent.
trmp is still a capitalist but the worst kind
This one is a bane to our systems of governance/governmental structure. Whereas it has been the conservative perspective/worldview that federalism is to be regarded higher than our federal system of centralization. . . we now see how conservatives can shift when it suits their purposes to attempt to take over, manipulate, and control those they view as and have made adversaries within their own country.
That last sentence above should teach us all a lesson about why it is naïve (and STUPID) for this country to talk and write about its two leading political parties as being natural enemies. We set ourselves up for all this in-fighting we feel and touch everyday! It was a stupid thing for politicians on both sides to let happen and fail to thwart! And so, our people are reaping the consequences as we are a 'worsening' divided country from the top down primarily because of it.
Our governmental systems has components (states-plural, central government) which by their nature do not permit one grouping of leaders to render all decisions and judgements without oversight discussions and protections.
Yet, we see Trump, MAGA supporters-including a 'bloc' of conservative republican congresspersons, acting to REMOVE state authority indirectly and shift relatively all control to the President of the United States. This is unconstitutional.
The constitution is really just a piece of (aging) paper, if we do not support it. And, its ideas will simply be abstracts and tattering thoughts of remembrances if we do not enforce its separations of powers!
There is a 'ready' made problem that Trump and Bondi are forgetting or never knew. . . if you ban hate speech. . . it goes underground. . .may even burrow deeper underground. . .and just like air freshers that beautifully scent the surrounding air. . . the sickness in the air will remain infectious and contaminate surfaces and yes people. And when you see it; hear about it; will be when you feel it making harmful contact!
"Attorney General Pam Bondi clarifies "hate speech" comment after blowback."
Pam Bondi defends stance on prosecuting hate speech
FOX news host on the air literally advocated for the murder of homeless people and he keeps his job.
I guess hate speech is okay including violent speech advocating the death of the homeless if it's a right-wing outlet and a far right wing pundit as long as a meager apology is offered.
Can Jimmy Kimmel just do the same thing FOX did, the same thing the FOX host did, can't Kimmel just apologize?
What Jimmy Kimmel said was nowhere near the level of hate or violence coming from FOX hosts.
The youth are literally watching and 'acting out' on what they see and feel from the adults in this nation. Including those adults standing around holding their hands and doing nothing to develop and provide a remedy for what is ailing our nation! Think about it, all of this insult/offend/defeat culture is giving the youth PTSD and they are using it to pick up guns and weapons on their own volition. To fight for themselves without the foreknowledge of adults!