Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Deadline: Legal Blog-Attorney General Pam Bondi is wrong about 'hate speech' being unprotected expression [View all]
The attorney general either misunderstands the law or wants Trump supporters to misunderstand the law.
Link to tweet
https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/pam-bondi-hate-speech-first-amendment-rcna231590
Does Attorney General Pam Bondi misunderstand the law, or does she want Donald Trump’s supporters to misunderstand the law? Either would be bad, but the question arises in connection with her recent comments about so-called hate speech.
Speaking on a podcast hosted by Katie Miller (wife of Trump aide Stephen Miller), Bondi said, “There’s free speech and then there’s hate speech.”
,,,,,, The attorney general’s comments came in the context of last week’s fatal shooting of Trump ally Charlie Kirk. Though Kirk has been celebrated over the last week by conservatives and some liberals as a free speech proponent, the administration and its supporters and enablers have supported, sought or carried out the firings of Americans who have made hateful or even simply critical comments about Kirk.
But putting aside the clear political hypocrisy, the legal fact remains that there’s no hate speech exception to the First Amendment. On the one hand, that’s comforting insofar as it should defeat any prosecutions attempted by the administration against people for protected speech. Yet, even if one is ultimately successful in defeating any frivolous legal moves, that comfort only extends so far under an administration whose words and actions show that it has gone after and will continue to go after people and groups it sees as its opponents. Regardless of the outcome, no one should want to be targeted in the first place.
Beyond this one important speech issue, Bondi’s error raises a broader question: If the attorney general is incorrect about this basic legal premise, what other errors might she be making when it comes to the range of crucial matters that face the Justice Department every day?
Speaking on a podcast hosted by Katie Miller (wife of Trump aide Stephen Miller), Bondi said, “There’s free speech and then there’s hate speech.”
Link to tweet
,,,,,, The attorney general’s comments came in the context of last week’s fatal shooting of Trump ally Charlie Kirk. Though Kirk has been celebrated over the last week by conservatives and some liberals as a free speech proponent, the administration and its supporters and enablers have supported, sought or carried out the firings of Americans who have made hateful or even simply critical comments about Kirk.
But putting aside the clear political hypocrisy, the legal fact remains that there’s no hate speech exception to the First Amendment. On the one hand, that’s comforting insofar as it should defeat any prosecutions attempted by the administration against people for protected speech. Yet, even if one is ultimately successful in defeating any frivolous legal moves, that comfort only extends so far under an administration whose words and actions show that it has gone after and will continue to go after people and groups it sees as its opponents. Regardless of the outcome, no one should want to be targeted in the first place.
Beyond this one important speech issue, Bondi’s error raises a broader question: If the attorney general is incorrect about this basic legal premise, what other errors might she be making when it comes to the range of crucial matters that face the Justice Department every day?
1 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read