The War on Hate
Fighting "Hate Speech" Leads Down a Slippery Slope
Attorney General Pam Bondi angered conservatives by announcing a crackdown on what she called “hate speech.”
In video clips of Bondi speaking about hate speech, she implies that anyone targeting Americans with such speech will find themselves under the oppressive thumb of government action.
Pam Bondi’s comments about “hate speech” sound a little hypocritical. Charlie Kirk himself was an ardent defender of free speech and dismissed any notion of so-called hate speech.
Pam Bondi’s biggest problem is her use of the word in connection with actual crimes. Violent threats or criminal actions need their own label. I would pick…wait for it…crime! How about we call crimes what they are and steer clear of making up a new use for the term “hate speech.”
What Pam Bondi exposed, more than anything, was her total disconnect from the political sphere with which she is associated. Anyone who has been privy to the social aspect of right vs. left over the previous two decades would have known about the issues surrounding hate speech. There is no such thing. The First Amendment of the Constitution protects Americans from government suppression of all speech, including anything seen as hateful.
Initially, it appeared Bondi erred. Perhaps she was struggling to find a term to describe targeted threats of violence, or anyone pushing for it. However, she quickly threw that concept right out the window by doubling down on her promise to go after hate speech.
To make it worse, Pam Bondi made a promise that, using the Civil Rights division of the DOJ, under the leadership of Assistant AG Harmeet Dhillon, the government would force businesses to provide services to customers regardless of their refusal to do so. Bondi was referring to a Michigan Office Depot where employees refused to print posters for a Charlie Kirk vigil. The company fired the employees quickly because they protested on the grounds of “political propaganda.”
Office Depot’s firing of employees should be a matter up to the company, not the federal government. If the business owner thinks employee behaviors, like cheering on the public assassination of a political activist, or refusing to print posters for a vigil, are going to cost them business, therefore money, it is up to the forces of capitalism to determine the employment future of said employees. The federal government does not control it.
Pam Bondi’s comments seem more aligned with someone who has lived in a bubble for the last several decades than someone who should run the DOJ. The Supreme Court of the United States ultimately reviewed the famous case involving the Colorado bakery and ruled in favor of the owner, based on free speech and expression. At the very least, the attorney general of the United States should be familiar with the very famous case.
Bondi should know that people have pushed the term “hate speech” as a justification for censorship in the United States for decades. The Supreme Court has regularly reviewed and rejected hate speech cases since the 1940s. Even the Constitution protected some of the most disgusting displays of “hate”.
Be Careful What You Wish For
The “Left” has been pushing a war on speech for years, using hate speech as their reasoning. As we’ve seen in countries around the world that allow “free expression, except for hate speech,” use this type of speech as a label for things they don’t like. In countries like the UK, the government has been locking people up for criticizing the government in Facebook posts.
Universities tried to implement hate speech rules, but courts struck them down. Regardless of how fared in court, the rising interest in hate speech regulation should concern anyone who treasures free expression.
Labelling something “hate speech” (sorry to say it for the hundredth time) is often arbitrary. Whether something is hateful can be left open for interpretation. As we’ve seen, a growing trend is to label mean words, or things that hurt someone’s feelings, as violence, or hateful. Eventually, immature, childlike people will have the power to make something fall within the legal definition of hate speech.
It is a very slippery slope.
We Don’t Need the Government Telling Us What We Can and Can’t Say
It is ALWAYS a recipe for disaster. Give the government an inch, and it will always turn into a mile, then miles.
When despicable people gloated online in the wake of Charlie Kirk’s death, there was swift retribution. The internet went to work, and many lost their jobs. While the left has cried about cancel culture (despite their use of it to ruin lives), they’re social consequences can bring about actual results. If someone loses their job for saying something stupid that reflects on an employer, that’s hardly a free speech violation.
The outcry over the cancellation certainly relates to the crime. People being fired merely for supporting Democrats or Republicans is one thing. That’s something more akin to censorship. Another person outright praising an act of terrorism and heinous violence is another. In the latter, disassociating from crazed radicals is probably a move that’s good for business.
People who get fired should have the right to say these horrible things. If there are social consequences, that’s how life works in adult world. Any man, woman, government, etc can not infringe the ability to say these things. If negative repercussions result from saying them, that’s the risk you take. It should never be up to the government to allow or disallow these hurtful words.
More laws, enforcement, money, or bureaucrats are never the answer. Instead, Americans need to determine what is socially acceptable.
Determining societal acceptance is the Game We Play
Americans have experienced societal censorship for years. Uttering certain words has resulted in social cancellations. People have dredged up social media histories to smear individuals. Unfortunately, there’s not much to be done to combat this, aside from a societal vilification of these practices. That is what ultimately works.
While the left wants to pretend like they’re pro “free speech” now, it was one president ago that Democrats were trying to install a “Ministry of Truth.” The same Democratic administration was pressuring social media companies to silence its critics. These free speech-loving Dems also fled to social media garbage receptacles like Bluesky because Elon Musk’s Twitter acquisition meant opinions they didn’t like were going to be exposed to the world.
Their protests over free speech have nothing to do with government oppression. Angry and hurt Americans, disgusted over the scenes they were witnessing, reported droves of these acts. There is no stopping society from doing its best to overcome bad ideas with good ones. They partially do this by showing the faults in those with bad ideas, like maybe sharing your morbid, unstable opinions could cost you a job, or relationships. It is not about violently silencing someone for things you don’t agree with.
There Is No Place for More Government Censorship
While Pam Bondi’s heart is in the right place, calling threats of violence “hate speech” was a bad way to start. Prosecuting crimes is central to a functioning society, but Bondi’s actions should raise a red flag.
The BIGGEST red flag to me is her ignorance surrounding these issues. Someone central to this movement needs to be more informed about recent trends surrounding hate speech and the rights of business owners to refuse service.
Donald Trump’s administration will only last until January 2029. Once the day comes, another administration will be in place. It’ll be either Democrat or Republican, so think about who will inherit these laws next.