by Elwood Watson
The horrific assassination of Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk has unleashed all sorts of cascading emotions, and has apparently resulted in Attorney General Pam Bondi having a mental meltdown.
Earlier this week, she appeared on the Katie Miller Podcast and declared federal law enforcement will “go after” Americans for hate speech.
Visibly and publicly outraged by certain “vulgar” (her term) expressions of contempt for Kirk’s legacy in the media, she vowed to take revenge: “We will absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech. There’s free speech, and then there’s hate speech. And there is no place — especially now, especially after what happened to Charlie — [for that] in our society,” Bondi said.
There is no hate-speech exception to the First Amendment.
This is not some random, disgruntled plain Jane or average Joe spewing such alarming rhetoric. These comes from the mouth of America’s highest-ranking law enforcement official. Not surprisingly, after a torrent of criticism from across the political spectrum, Bondi clarified her remarks, arguing she only stated “hate speech” accompanied by “calls to violence” would be prosecuted.
Bondi’s words are constitutionally illogical and counterfeit. She promised to target certain individuals for hate speech, a term that is resoundingly subjective and potentially ambiguous. “There is no unprotected category of speech in the constitution or in the case law called ‘hate speech,’” said Heidi Kitrosser, a Northwestern University law professor. “By being so vague and by talking about speech that doesn’t fit into any legal category, she is basically opening the door for taking action against anyone who engages in speech that the president or the Department of Justice or Stephen Miller doesn’t like.”
Similar outrage was directed toward Bondi from right-wing supporters normally aligned with the Trump administration.
“Get rid of her. Today,” wrote conservative pundit Matt Walsh. “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.”
Erick Erickson, a conservative commentator, called Bondi “a moron,” while longtime Fox News political analyst Brit Hume wrote on social media, “Someone needs to explain to Ms. Bondi that so-called ‘hate speech,’ repulsive though it may be, is protected by the First Amendment. She should know this.”
A number of her critics pointedly pounced on a May 2024 social media post by Kirk himself, laying out clearly 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,” Kirk wrote.
It’s difficult to listen to rhetoric from others who in some cases dehumanize your right to exist as a human being. Moreover, when you are in your late teens and early adulthood (although it appears to be the case for many middle-aged and older adults as well), your emotions are often tender, reactionary, and fertile. You are inclined to react irrationally if you feel you are being disrespected and discounted, or your sensibilities confronted or challenged. Personal feelings aside, the answer is not to prohibit others with whom you disagree from expressing their viewpoints. The more appropriate and effective response to challenge morally indefensible speech is to produce concrete facts and logic that can or will effectively dispel it.
Free speech is a crucial and vital ingredient in our democracy. Either you have it or you don’t. It is important to remember that when you attempt to curtail free speech, it may only be a matter of time before your voice can be reciprocally stifled or silenced. Denying others the right to express their opinions is a misguided and dangerous activity that can result in dramatic and disastrous consequences for all.
To quote former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, “sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.” Dictatorial behavior, irrespective of its political source or direction, cannot be condoned or tolerated in a democracy.
Copyright 2025 Elwood Watson, distributed by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate. Elwood Watson is a professor of history, Black studies, and gender and sexuality studies at East Tennessee State University. He is also an author and public speaker.
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.