Following the murder of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, many critics of Kirk posted content on social media in which they said rude things about Kirk—and even about his family members—while expressing delight about Kirk’s death. Not surprisingly, many of Kirk’s supporters—and many other ordinary people—found these comments offensive and reprehensible.
Perhaps as part of an effort to exploit the situation to improve her own political fortunes, US Attorney General Pam Bondi then declared that she, a government prosecutor, will “go after” those who engage in what she called “hate speech.”
“Hate speech,” however, does not exist. At all. That’s a phrase the Left invented to define speech the Left doesn’t like as outside the legal protections of Bill of Rights. Put another way, the concept of “hate speech” was invented to justify state-enforced censorship of speech. That Bondi buys into this nonsense is made clear by Bondi’s pledge to “go after” people who are guilty of this hate-speech “crime” that Bondi apparently imagines in her head.
These comments, coming from a sitting Attorney General, are extremely problematic, to say the least. The very fact that Bondi unironically uses the term “hate speech” illustrates how deeply immersed she is in the culture of coercion and despotism that permeates the Washington ruling class. Any politician who promotes the concept of “hate speech” should be considered an enemy of our most fundamental natural rights, and his or her political career deserves to be ended permanently.
There Is No Such Thing as Hate Speech
Bondi’s dangerous comments on so-called hate speech came as part of her Monday appearance on the Katie Miller podcast. When asked by the host if colleges and universities are somehow complicit in Kirk’s murder, Bondi agreed and stated:
on a broader level, the anti-Semitism—what’s been happening at college campuses around this country— it’s disgusting, it’s despicable and we’ve been fighting that, we’ve been fighting these universities left and right and that’s not going to stop. 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.
Miller then gave Bondi an opportunity to clarify her outlandish comments. But Bondi doubled down. Miller said “do you see more law enforcement going after these groups, who are using hate speech and putting cuffs on people so we show them that some action is better than no action?” Bondi responded: “We will absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech…”
Bondi’s comments are even worse when we read them in the full context because she’s connecting her assault on speech not just to nasty comments from Kirk-haters. She also seeks to justify prosecution of alleged “anti-Semites,” by which she really means people who don’t like the socialist State of Israel.
On this latter topic, the administration has already attempted to legally persecute—and prosecute— activists who are guilty of the non-crime of criticizing the Israeli state. One of the most famous examples is Rümeysa Öztürk who was supposedly arrested for supporting violent protests. No evidence, however, has ever been presented to this effect. It is now clear that Öztürk was arrested for the “crime” of writing an op-ed critical of Israel. In other words, the administration launched legal action against Öztürk for alleged hate speech against the Israeli state.
[Read More: “First They Came for the Op-Ed Writers“ by James Bovard.]
Perhaps feeling emboldened by the President’s support for attacks on op-ed writers, Bondi then pledged to “target” and “go after” people who say mean things on the internet.
This, of course, is blatantly contrary to the American Bill of Rights and more than 300 years of classical-liberal thinking. Frankly, if Bondi fancies herself as some sort of defender of American freedoms, she needs remedial lessons on the topic.
Speech Rights Are Property Rights
Importantly, the right to free speech is not something invented by the US Constitution or federal judges. The freedom of speech is a property right. It stems from the basic, natural right to own ourselves and to own property. That is, the right to use your body to express certain opinions stems from the basic, natural right of self-ownership.
To be sure, there are reasonable, non-state limitations on this right. A person cannot make speeches or express opinions in places where the property owner does not allow it. For example, a person cannot distribute political op-eds in the grocery store if the store owner says “no.” One cannot shout “fire” in a crowded theater (when there is no fire) because it can be assumed the theater’s owner frowns on that sort of thing. On the other hand, if we respect property rights we are forced to conclude that a person is totally and utterly free to express opinions in a time, place, publication, or forum where the owner does not prohibit it.
Pam Bondi may not like it when people criticize the state of Israel or cheer the murder of Charlie Kirk on a privately-owned web site. But whether or not that person is allowed to say things in that place is not something the US government can legitimately regulate.
The only legitimate limitation on free speech is when that speech involves a real and specific threat against another person. On this, the US federal courts were more or less correct when, in the 1969 case of Brandenburg v. Ohio, the court concluded that speech can only be limited when that speech “is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action.” Saying “I’m glad Charlie Kirk is dead” doesn’t even come close to that standard. Neither does saying “I hope members of the IDF get killed.” Vague attacks on foreign armies are a form of free speech, pure and simple.
Even the idea of incitement lends itself to abuse, since it is not always clear when speech is encouraging something in general, or if it involves a specific, imminent threat. Moreover, people are not automatons who simply act out whatever some other person on the internet says should happen. Not every call for violence is necessarily an incitement to “imminent lawless action.”
It is clear, however, that in her comments to Katie Miller, Pam Bondi is not concerned by either legal standards or by property rights. As she is a politician, we should not be at all surprised to discover that she is likely to be more concerned with sounding “tough” to pander to certain interest groups.
Bondi’s embrace of the absurd notion of “hate speech” is also dangerous because it is so vague, undefinable, and open to abuse. Whether or not speech is “hate” speech is totally subjective. What is one man’s hate is another man’s sensible observation. Any practicing Christian sees this every time the Left claims that opposition to gay marriage is a form of hate speech. The Bondi facsimiles on the Left would love nothing more than to “target” and “go after” any Christian clergyman who criticizes gay marriage from the pulpit.
If left up to government courts and government prosecutors, virtually anything can be defined as hate speech. This has been clear since the early days of the “hate speech” phenomenon more than twenty years ago. For example, in a lecture in 2004, historian Ralph Raico pointed out the inherent malleability of the hate-speech canard:
Hate speech can include everything that you might think of including. Hate speech might very well include—it could be argued in court—doing away with welfare in New York City. One might say, “Well, that’s hate speech because the implication is clearly that we should do away with welfare for minority populations, which are the great bulk of the people who get welfare in New York City.”
In other words, opposition to the welfare state could easily be defined as “racist” and therefore “hate speech.” All it takes is a sympathetic judge or a despotic AG like Pam Bondi.
Now, to the credit of many rank-and-file of the MAGA movement, Bondi has faced substantial blowback for position. Matt Walsh—to name just one MAGA activist who has denounced Bondi’s comments—has called for her to be fired.
Bondi then backtracked and rather disingenuously attempted to claim that she was really only talking about speech that calls for violence. She later claimed: ““Hate speech that crosses the line into threats of violence is NOT protected by the First Amendment. It’s a crime.” This was little more than damage control.
It’s unlikely, however, that Bondi will be removed for declaring the First Amendment null and void. Donald Trump has shown a willingness to be “flexible” when it comes to the rule of law in that he is more than happy to use the same immoral and unconstitutional methods used by his own predecessors, both Left and Right.
