And so ends the decades long push — by the left — to criminalize hate speech. Thanks, Justice Sotomayor!
17 सितंबर 2025
"Every time I listen to a lawyer-trained representative saying we should criminalize free speech in some way, I think to myself, that law school failed."
Said Sonia Sotomayor, quoted in "Sotomayor rebukes calls to 'criminalize free speech' in apparent swipe at Pam Bondi/The justice, in public remarks, didn’t name the attorney general, who has come under fire for comments to target people over 'hate speech'" (Politico).
संदेश
190 टिप्पणियां:
Maybe Bondi is not so dumb.
But...but...but...hate speech laws can be turned against My Team? I never saw that coming!
Said sarcastically by every critic of "hate speech" laws.
Ah but you see, hate speech is not free speech. The progressives have been saying that for years. Why didn’t the Wise Latina use the words “hate speech”?
Was she just trying to score a political point but leaving herself wiggle room or did she have to obscure her point because she was afraid of a violent backlash from the left?
Pam Blondie (sic) should resign.
Petard clipped to halyard and firmly hoisted by Her Honor.
Bondi is using a tool the left put in the toolbox. Maybe this will cause a bipartisan majority to pass a repeal of hate crime laws.
"Lawyer-trained representative"? Why not just say "lawyer"?
Humperdink, I hope that was sarcasm.
Will this influence law schools to develop free speech codes to protect their conservative students ?
…someone here yesterday suggested this was the intent of the Bondi statement. It worked…
The unwise latinxa should focus less on the AG across town,
and more on the emotional black flunkie a few chairs down.
Will Soto now support the idea bar associations should not intimidate or threaten lawyers who represent her political opponents? Bondi should make a statement…
"Why not just say 'lawyer'?"
Cut her some slack. It was her political speechifying not her skill with the law that got her where she is. She's probably secretly thankful Biden put someone dumber than she is on the bench.
And so ends the decades long push — by the left — to criminalize hate speech.
I don't share your optimism, but I'll take the W for now.
Now if the left can just make the next logical conclusion that if the Government isn't justified in criminalizing "Hate Speech", then people aren't justified in using violence because they think a person is using "Hate Speech."
Boyd is right. They won't remember any of this if they get the thinnest sliver of power back. Throw this right back in her face 4 years from now and she'll say her words were "taken out of context" lol.
Stop the PRAVDA presses ! There's a new Party line today !
Prog hate speech is free speech. Conservative free speech is violence.
Did I say 4 years? Heck...4 weeks.
Bondi made a mistake and corrected it. BFD.
Merrick Garland jailed grandmas who were parading on January 6th.
Not free speech, not "hate speech", but rather calls to commit violence.
Bill, Republic of Texas said...
..hate speech is not free speech..
..Why didn’t the Wise Latina use the words “hate speech”?
RideSpaceMountain said...
..Throw this right back in her face 4 years from now and she'll say her words were "taken out of context" ..
nope, say WON'T say that her words were taken out of context.
she'll point out; that free speech (when lefties talk) IS protected..
and that hate speech (when anyone else talks) IS grounds for murder
there is No double standard, there is Only the single standard:
Lefties are ALWAYS correct
Ideally, we as a society could just move forward with a unified appreciation for the value and importance of Free Speech, but I suspect that in order for this recent appreciation for Free Speech on the Left we are now seeing to stick there needs to be a few years of the Left getting a bit of their own medicine. There is a difference between cerebrally valuing something and emotionally valuing something because you have emotionally experienced what it is like to lose that thing or at least dealt with the apprehension or fear of losing it. That fear might guarantee this valuing of Free Speech is a bit more durable. The left has a tendency to go through mental gymnastics to wind up at the conclusion of "it's different when we do it."
I’m going with Bob Boyd on this one. I’ll take the win but not that optimistic.
Bondi is following the Trump script and they are taking the bait, hook, line, and sinker. #HateLovesAbortion
She’s pointing out the correct remedy for hate speech is death.
There is no reason to get all tangled up in the justice system.
"It's different when we do it."
The eternal mantra of F-class MBTI 'emotive' personality types.
Sotomayor is the smartest Democrat on the USSC, and Bondi is one of weakest members of Trump's team. I hope that these inherently asinine "hate speech" laws will be shut down.
I hate to say it, but I hate hate speech laws.
Sotomayor leads Democratic damage control. Novel. Desperate.
The left is only consistent in their inconsistency
"Lawyer-trained representative"? Why not just say "lawyer"?
I agree with her distinction. One who has a JD isn’t necessarily a lawyer. Many never pass the bar or ever work as a lawyer. In California, the bar passage rate historically was in the 40% range. Recently the bug-eyed lefties have changed the exam and lowered the number of points required to pass so that the neck snappers and illegals can hang a shingle. Even so, passage is 55%.
The other 45% become community organizers and run for office or work as DEI consultants.
- Krumhorn
"I don't share your optimism, but I'll take the W for now."
1. I had to be brief because the sunrise was calling.
2. I was thinking about how to express the cynical side — such as by adding the civility bullshit tag to mean that when liberals are in power she'll act as though she never said these things. But, short on time, I opted to just lay down the marker. We can come back to this if needed.
3. I want to optimize the hope. She's an opinion leader of the left. I'm not going to tear her down when she's leading in the right direction.
Good for the Wide Latina to finally come out for Free Speech. Points off for saying "representative" but I guess she couldn't help being snarky about the AG. I assume she knows who Bondi is and what position she holds.
I may be wrong.
I read the Politico article. Curious whether anyone at NYU law asked her any follow-up questions.
Such as:
What specifically are you referring to?
Does your criticism apply to laws passed over the last two decades which seek to criminalize speech which is derogatory to women, minorities, and other 'protected' groups or categories?
What is your position with regard to speech which explicitly promotes or encourages violence?
What is your position with regard to laws which provide for enhanced punishment for crimes allegedly motivated by "hate?"
What the hell is a "lawyer-trained representative?"
How absurd. Sotomayor isn't against criminalizing speech. Would she vote against hate speech laws? No. And why is she making public comments, like she's a Democrat party politician? Oh that's right, because she really is one. She just wears black robes.
Unfortunately, AIs trained on social media mobs will have the final say.
According to the old gypsy woman I keep on staff, the most you can hope for is if you stop complaining about the government, your robot nurse will be a little more gentle next time it changes your diaper.
I applaud this from Althouse:
And so ends the decades long push — by the left — to criminalize hate speech. Thanks, Justice Sotomayor!
It's gonna take more than one credible figure on the Left to make a real difference, but a preference cascade starts with one brave voice. I applaud Sotomayor for saying this.
Is there an anti-semitism exception, professor? *wink*
Thanks, Justice Sotomayor!
It's a win-win for the Trump admin.
Was Ann Althouse Cohen an affirmative-action hire? Non-silenced voices want to know...
Bondi made a mistake and corrected it. BFD.
I must have missed her correction. I saw her try to ameliorate the damage in a brief clip but I didn't hear her say, a la Kirk, that "There is no such thing as hate speech." Still the unified "no" from our side immediately was truly a pleasure to see.
Does your criticism apply to laws passed over the last two decades which seek to criminalize speech which is derogatory to women, minorities, and other 'protected' groups or categories?
…I recall some of them explaining the game to mean only protected groups could claim hate speech against as if it wasn’t the speech that mattered at all. That way they could include all the implied coded, sneaky back handed hate speech, too…
Excellent, Smithers...
[shrug] Cenk Uyghur was on X praising the right for springing to the defense of free speech (particularly considering that the perceived threat was coming from "one of their own") and rejecting the notion that this particular class of speech, "hate speech," isn't protected.
I don't believe the "4-D chess" explanation; I just think Bondi messed up and then embarrassingly had to correct herself. But the incident certainly illustrates where we actually stand, doesn't it?
The left's terrorist/Assassination culture inspiring words:
"Trump is an existential threat to democracy"
"Trump is Hitler"
"Trump is a fascist"
"Trump is a King"
"Trump's supporters are fascists"
"Trump is a Nazi"
“Trump's supporters are Nazis"
"Trump is a dictator and he will end our democracy"
“Trump is an existential threat to democracy”
“Trump’s supporters are an existential threat to democracy”
“We're in a war right now to save this country. And so you have to be willing to do whatever is necessary in order to save the country." – Senator Chris Murphy(D)
“This fascist administration didn’t come from anywhere... We’re gonna fight, fight, FIGHT!” –AOC
The Democrats and their loyal media use rhetoric that inspires assassination. They hire assassins, too.
I said Blondie should resign.
Danny responded: “ Humperdink, I hope that was sarcasm.”
No, it was not sarcasm. There is no such thing as hate speech. Why you ask? Speech is speech. Don’t like it? Don’t listen to it. Who is the arbiter for what is hate? Our government? Blondie has gone over to dark side.
Bob Boyd said ....
"Prog hate speech is free speech. Conservative free speech is violence."
Nah. Got to prosecute a few thousand leftists first for hate speech. Make the enemy live by its rules.
If Bondi will "take the win" as offered here, smile inscrutably, and remain silent then perhaps she's smarter than we thought.
Perhaps. Time will tell. Trump will decide, because he's the decider now. That's the part that makes a lot of borderline people go fully insane. Keep hope alive.
"And so ends the decades long push — by the left — to criminalize hate speech. Thanks, Justice Sotomayor!"
Not a chance.
Has Sonia Sotomayer, or for that matter, any Democrat of note, come out to defend Shiloh Hendrix? She is charged with 3 misdemeanors for her use of "the n-word" on a boy who was trying to rob her in a public park.
It is a shame that practices like DEI cast shade on whether the career of a woman or minority is deserved or given us as a handout. However, a the body of one’s work stands as evidence of their capability, and I think Althouse’s work speaks well of her ability to have done the job. She’s proved herself, even if others want to criticize her as a woman, which proves who they are.
Begley's comment sent me looking for Bondi's correction.
There's this:
https://x.com/agpambondi/status/1967913066554630181?s=46
insty:
"Pam Bondi gets Justice Sotomayor to come out against “Hate Speech” regulation. “And so ends the decades long push — by the left — to criminalize hate speech. Thanks, Justice Sotomayor!” "
It seems like we’re skipping past the real issue: the AG just said she would “target” people for hate speech. That’s wrong on principle, period.
Ann frames this as “the end of the left’s decades-long push to criminalize hate speech,” but that’s a strawman. Sure, some progressive voices have toyed with restrictions, usually out of fear of words fueling violence, but there’s never been serious legal momentum because the First Amendment standard is rock-solid.
What I see emerging on the right is different—and more troubling. It’s less about preventing downstream harm and more about retribution and silencing. When owning the Dems becomes more important than upholding the core principle of free speech, we’ve lost the plot.
A lawyer is someone with a J.D. An attorney is someone who has passed a bar exam. "Lawyer-trained representative" thus differs from a "lawyer" only if the representative didn't graduate from law school. I doubt Sotomayor was trying to refer to someone who dropped out of law school.
And, by the way, Kagan is much smarter than either Sotomayor or the Biden-proclaimed DEI hire.
Insty quoting Althouse. -
Has this justice supported suppression of "hate speech" in the past?
The Actual purpose of bondi's words - I think - is to root out Radical violent extremist leftist Democratic Antifa Terrorists.
Which needs to occur
Krumhorn said...
"The [others] become community organizers and run for office or work as DEI consultants.”
That’s what immediately popped into my head when I read “Lawyer-trained representative”. And a lot of those people don’t necessarily have law degrees.
The problem is that the old-school control faction of the right does indeed seek to regulate speech. "My country right or wrong. Love for god and country. Love it or leave it." Etc.
Politics forms a 4-square grid rather than a 2-option dichotomy. The totalitarian factions on the left and right both love control.
The main idea of hate speech laws is that the intent of a speaker gets to be determined by the listener. This inversion of reality is so extreme as to be facially absurd. Yet it has been allowed to continue for half my lifetime. To hell with that leftist illogic, and to hell with them.
I guess having Sotomayor lie and say she's for "Free Speech" is better than a kick in the head. But she's not. SHe and left will continue to criminalize free speech when they are back in power.
Unlike dumb rightwingers, Leftists will make tactical retreats and -gasp- be dishonest about what they really believe. The fact that Sotomayor attacked Bondi doesn't mean she's for free speech, it just means she saw a way to attack Bondi and look principled.
During WW II, Stalin the man who destroyed churches and sent priests to the Gulag, re-opened the Churches and started talking about "Our beloved Russia". He wanted the Russians to fight for him. After the war, things went back to the way they were before.
But of course, religious conservatives in the USA in 1943 were hi-fiving themselves over "Stalin's change of heart".
Ron Ward -
"troubling" Leftist violence is troubling.
Testa dealership set on fire.
Open calls from the democrats to do that.
Rioting in large cities causing billions in property damage - and democrats are out there cheering for more.
Steve Scalice - congressional baseball shooting. He was nearly killed by an outspoken Bernie Bro.
Rand Paul attacked by his neighbor - you leftists cheered.
Children being gunned down by radical Trans.
Crime all over the nation - while your party allows it.
In Kenosha Wisconsin - a woman calls police because her husband/BF is threatening her with a knife. Police show up and he wont drop the knife so they end up shooting him.
The left burn down Kenosha at the pleasure of the Democratic party. Kamala even visited to inspire more rioting.
I find that troubling.
"Ronald J. Ward said...
...but that’s a strawman"
Nah.
Exactly Peachy, in your classic form, you just proved my point. When I say it’s troubling that leaders and media figures celebrate political violence after the fact, you don’t address that—you just run through a list of criminal acts and blame them on “Democrats.” That’s exactly the problem: not violence itself, but how it’s politically framed, excused, or even rewarded.
Ronald J. Ward said...
It seems like we’re skipping past the real issue: the AG just said she would “target” people for hate speech. That’s wrong on principle, period.
Ann frames this as “the end of the left’s decades-long push to criminalize hate speech,” but that’s a strawman. Sure, some progressive voices have toyed with restrictions, usually out of fear of words fueling violence, but there’s never been serious legal momentum because the First Amendment standard is rock-solid.
What I see emerging on the right is different—and more troubling. It’s less about preventing downstream harm and more about retribution and silencing. When owning the Dems becomes more important than upholding the core principle of free speech, we’ve lost the plot.
What has happened every time a center or conservative speaker goes to a college campus over the last 30 years?
What happened when you tried to point out that COVID came from a Chinese lab in 2020?
You are just a dishonest person and you are either too stupid to notice or you are evil.
jim said, "Has this justice supported suppression of "hate speech" in the past?"
Nah, this is all compelled by yet another of her fellow-travelers immanentizing the boogening.
dbp said...
Has Sonia Sotomayer, or for that matter, any Democrat of note, come out to defend Shiloh Hendrix? She is charged with 3 misdemeanors for her use of "the n-word" on a boy who was trying to rob her in a public park.
Completely different. She is a racist.
If the left labels you a racist or a fascist you are no longer protected by laws or the first amendment.
That is why the left feels so comfortable trying to kill Trump and assassinating Kirk. They called them racist and fascist.
It is like magic for them.
"Unlike dumb rightwingers, Leftists will make tactical retreats and -gasp- be dishonest about what they really believe. The fact that Sotomayor attacked Bondi doesn't mean she's for free speech, it just means she saw a way to attack Bondi and look principled."
Yeah I somewhat agree with this. The take away from the assassination of Kirk and the responses we've seen from the Left is that the Right can no longer assume that Left are decent people. This doesn't mean that all folks on the Left are bad, but enough on the Left are intellectually dishonest, unprincipled, conniving people that the only safe way to deal with the left is to assume that bad-faith actors are always a possibility.
Stay classy NYT. Radical democrat leftists.
“You are just a dishonest person and you are either too stupid to notice or you are evil.”
Don’t be L7. Embrace the undeniable power of “AND”!
The corrupt left killed Charlie Kirk.
The corrupt left: you mad bro?
Sure, some progressive voices have toyed with restrictions, usually out of fear of words fueling violence, but there’s never been serious legal momentum because the First Amendment standard is rock-solid.
Do you think this is persuasive?
How do you feel about speech codes at publicly-funded colleges and universities? Are those just figments of our imagination?
Ronald J. Ward said...
Exactly Peachy, in your classic form, you just proved my point. When I say it’s troubling that leaders and media figures celebrate political violence after the fact, you don’t address that—you just run through a list of criminal acts and blame them on “Democrats.” That’s exactly the problem: not violence itself, but how it’s politically framed, excused, or even rewarded.
I remember the day Trump was inaugurated in 2017.
Democrats set DC on fire. It was like a BLM test run. Anyone who refuses to denounce the Black Lives Matter movement in total supports violence. Democrats are violent. Have been. Always will be.
Democrats never accepted the Constitution. That is why they tried to secede in 1860 to keep their slaves and keep trying to repeal the 2nd amendment.
I would say that nothing was ended by the statement, just parked until a more favorable climate blows in, and it will.
Hate speech is only dredged up when public sentiment is whipped into an outrage by some event, and needs to be harvested for political advantage. What I'm hoping for is something that puts an end to institutional censorship - shadow banning, account blocking, cancellations - for speech that is simply unhelpful to an agenda. We've had more of that then many people realize, driven by government authority, and it's far more powerful and insidious, in my opinion. Make that illegal to a degree that's too toxic for any middle manager to bear, and then we'll be doing something useful.
"What I see emerging on the right is different—and more troubling. It’s less about preventing downstream harm and more about retribution and silencing. When owning the Dems becomes more important than upholding the core principle of free speech, we’ve lost the plot."
It's not more troubling. It's equal. Instead of siccing the IRS on your church, freezing your bank accounts for wrong think, and bullying big tech into silencing truthful information, we are going to revoke your passport for criticizing Israel or send you to prison for a year for burning a flag.
There is no longer a small government party or a free speech party. The progressives have won those issues.
We found the proof that the EVIL Right inspired it all.
And so ends the decades long push — by the left — to criminalize hate speech.
@Althouse, your naïveté is so cute sometimes. The war on hate speech is only suspended while a Republican gets to define what hate speech is. It will resume again after the Democrats eventually retake the Presidency (hopefully not for ah least two decades).
Enigma begins the new day with a debilitating dollop of whaddaboudism…
Bob, I went there: Bob's link
It was muddled and did not rise to what I expect. She is still saying "you can't call for murder" but one can, legally do so. Like I said yesterday she is too arrogant IMO to simply and forthrightly correct what she said and admit she made a mistake invoking "hate speech" in the first place.
This would have been a great time to reiterate that there is no such thing as hate speech. There is only Free Speech. We criminalize wrong acts not wrong words in this country.
Her words seem quite clear.
I will accept them with gratitude until sometime in the future when someone (Likely the NYTimes) explains that wasn’t what she really meant.
“And so ends the decades long push — by the left — to criminalize hate speech.”
The Left has moved past criminalizing hate speech to advocating and celebrating murder of those who say things they don’t like.
Burning a flag where it is prohibited is crime, not speech. Lighting shit on fire in public, especially as a "protest," is a sign of barbarism anyway and is generally proscribed in most jurisdictions.
Even a blind squirrel will sometimes find a nut.
Here is Bondi's "correction" from X in full:
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.
I disagree that her words here are clear, and no I do not accept them. She should have said the first sentence (bolded above) and then shut the hell up.
Don't anyone dare make connections between mainstream Democrats in power - and democrat party terrorists.
If Trump would not have defeated Hillary, we'd have a Court full of Sonia's.
@Iman: Fact hurt, huh?
I've "hated" a lot of jerks on the right and the left.
Defamation lawsuits against the Corrupt Vile Democratic party media whores/ liars.
GOOD.
Has this justice supported suppression of "hate speech" in the past?
Maybe Bondi is not so dumb.
Maybe. I have my doubts.
I have no doubts about Sotomayor. She is dumb.
Ann Althouse said...
"I don't share your optimism, but I'll take the W for now."
1. I had to be brief because the sunrise was calling.
2. I was thinking about how to express the cynical side — such as by adding the civility bullshit tag to mean that when liberals are in power she'll act as though she never said these things. But, short on time, I opted to just lay down the marker. We can come back to this if needed.
Just say it. Both of these women are in the positions they are in because they are women. They are not the best and the brightest. They have both made embarrassing stupid mistakes and should be replaced by someone more competent.
3. I want to optimize the hope. She's an opinion leader of the left. I'm not going to tear her down when she's leading in the right direction.
History starts anew every day when there are no principles involved.
We all want to optimize hope. But hope means we are right back in this position in a couple months after some leftist kills someone else.
What annoying jerk left italics?
It was I, but hopefully it is fixed.
More heh heaped on the terrorist left:
Charles C. W. Cooke
@charlescwcooke
"So, just to check, given the encouragingly universal reaction to Bondi I’m seeing this morning: We’re all agreed, going forward, that there’s no such thing as hate speech, and that Jack Phillips can choose which cakes to bake, right? This is settled now?"
Make no mistake - the left targeted and terrorized a local cake baker.. over and over - and was given permission to harass and terrorize the cake baker - by every leftist in power in Colorado. (Polis on down)
I doubt an actual blind squirrel would make it to maturity without being a target of and meal for predators. And I'm sick of that stupid saying. Maybe I'm grumpy today.
Curse the italics.
Achilles said...
dbp said...
If the left labels you a racist or a fascist you are no longer protected by laws or the first amendment.
That is why the left feels so comfortable trying to kill Trump and assassinating Kirk. They called them racist and fascist.
I agree. They call you racist a fascist as a way of othering. Once you are an other, you are less human, or maybe completely sub human and can be killed, enslaved, robbed or whatever, without any pangs of empathy.
Is is done by willful calculation? I think, partly. There are people like Obama, who stirred-up divisiveness, because it was helpful to him. Take for example his birth certificate fiasco--It was all stonewalling, pound sand, it doesn't exist, it won't change any minds; until the precise second that it hurt him more than it hurt the opposition (thanks Trump!) and then suddenly, mirabile dictu there was a birth certificate which could be shared after-all.
But most people are just naturally tribalistic and have a penchant for an us v. them outlook. A good leader knows to try and dispel this, but leaders who are either short-sighted, or diabolical (it's honestly hard to tell which) like Obama or Slobodan Milošević will happily use this to further their ends.
Fixed the italics, I think.
Althouse said:
"Thanks, Justice Sotomayor!"
I must wonder about her lack of self-awareness. Does she understand the ramifications of what she said?
It seems like we’re skipping past the real issue: the AG just said she would “target” people for hate speech. That’s wrong on principle, period.
Maybe you skipped yesterday’s discussion on this, but “we” did not, DFC.
D.D. Driver said...
There is no longer a small government party or a free speech party. The progressives have won those issues.
This isn't true and you know it.
What people need to come to terms with is that the 1st amendment is a Contract.
You cannot make a contract with an unwilling participant. The Left is an unwilling participant.
If you want the First Amendment to be a principle written into our social contract then you have to agree to remove the people who do not accept the First Amendment from the society governed by the social contract.
We need to expand punishments to include exile. There are some people who just do not belong in a free society.
"Charlie Kirk wasn’t a fascist. They don’t kill you for being fascist. They call you a fascist - so they can kill you."
Progressives are leftists - leftists are terrorists.
" Does she understand the ramifications of what she said? "
the Lady Senator from Hawaii just explained to the defense dept, that (and i'm quoting here):
women are weaker than men, and CAN'T do the pullups that men are expected to do!
sorry! justice dept!
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/amy-curtis/2025/09/16/mazie-hirono-fbi-fitness-test-n2663416
Sen. Hirono asked Patel, "One question I had is that you are now requiring applicants to be able to do a certain kind of pull-ups, which a lot of women cannot because of physiological differences. Are you requiring these kinds of pull-ups?"
Patel responded, "We are requiring a physical program at BFTC (Basic Field Training Course) at Quantico because FBI agents carrying guns in the field have to chase down bad guys and do really hard work.
The "left," as we call the fascist cabal that runs the Democratic Party, will forget any such scruples as soon as they are back in power, but this is the first reasonable thing that I have heard out of Sotomayor's mouth.
It's funny that we are supposed to be the violent "fascists," but why do Tesla owners feel the need to put stickers on their cars intended to keep their fellow crypto-fascist Democrats from vandalizing it for political reasons?
Sotomayor is an opinion leader of the left?
My word. She's got some work to do.
"What people need to come to terms with is that the 1st amendment is a Contract."
And like all well-drafted contracts (prepared by excellent lawyers in the world at the time) the Contract has an amendments clause. If you want to amend the contract: do it.
Freedom of speech allows leftist parents to indoctrinate their young daughters to celebrate the assassination of Charlie Kirk.
All while vile late night liar(D) Kimmell(D) insists the assassin is MAGA.
You’re right, Leland — I missed yesterday’s discussion, and I appreciate the clarification. It does seem that what some Trump supporters agree on one day can shift quickly the next. It’s striking how often the movement’s messaging feels tightly choreographed, with little room for individual nuance.
Inman: "Don’t be L7" . . . come on and learn this dance, Wooly Bully, Wooly Bully.
"Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) revealed that whistleblower revelations showed that Joe Biden’s FBI targeted not just Donald Trump, but a wide swath of Republican organizations — including Charlie Kirk’s Turning Point USA...pointing directly to an operation known as “Arctic Frost.”
“Some examples of the group that Wray and FBI sought to place under political investigation included the Republican National Committee, Republican Attorney General’s Association, and various Trump political groups.”
The scope was staggering. “In total, 92 Republican targets, including Republican groups and Republican-linked individuals, were placed under investigative scope of Arctic Frost,” Grassley said.
It was actually about crippling the Republican political infrastructure.
“In other words, Arctic Frost wasn’t just a case to politically investigate Trump,” Grassley declared. “It was the vehicle by which partisan FBI agents and Department of Justice prosecutors could achieve their partisan ends and improperly investigate the entire Republican political apparatus.”"
https://x.com/OwenGregorian/status/1968272354376896727
But, short on time, I opted to just lay down the marker. We can come back to this when needed.
@Althouse, FIFY.
D.D. Driver said...
"What people need to come to terms with is that the 1st amendment is a Contract."
And like all well-drafted contracts (prepared by excellent lawyers in the world at the time) the Contract has an amendments clause. If you want to amend the contract: do it.
I don’t want to amend the contract. I want to enforce it.
That means all of the people who have created a climate of repression on college campuses need to be exiled from the country. All of the people in our public education system, mostly teachers who have raised a generation of totalitarians need to be exiled.
That means anybody who celebrated the killing of Charlie Kirk needs to be exiled.
It does seem that what some Trump supporters agree on one day can shift quickly the next. It’s striking how often the movement’s messaging feels tightly choreographed, with little room for individual nuance.
These two statements are contradictory.
After reading Althouse the other day, Lonesome Chuck tried eating spaghetti, but it didn't work.
The degree of cognitive dissonance is unreal. Also, "lawyer-trained"? Does that mean the representative was trained to talk, or prepped for a particular statement, by a lawyer? Or does she mean representatives with legal educations? I suggest she look into the magistrate program in many states where academic qualifications end at high school.
Can lawyer lawyer without representing someone?
Are you sure she didn't mean it was too much now that it was Democrats being accused. I'd have to see her previous call out of groups like SPLC to take this seriously as her actual feeling. And once again, I'll that Pam said hate speech with threats of violence, which is assault.
"a lawyer-trained representative saying we should criminalize free speech in some way, I think to myself, that law school failed" . . . And so ends the decades long push — by the left — to criminalize hate speech. Thanks, Justice Sotomayor!"
Just a temporary retreat. Prog support for free speech was always strictly instrumental. "Lawyer-trained" progs worked for decades on "hate speech." And of course cutting-edge progs want to do away with the Constitution altogether.
And so ends the decades-long push — by the left — to criminalize hate speech.
It's just begun.
KBJ remarked, “My biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the government in significant ways in the most important time periods.”
She's 55 years old. She'll be with us a long time.
MAGA conservatives are "honoring" Kirk’s memory by refusing to remember anything he said or did and punishing anyone who does.
"Gavin Newsom condemns the divisive online rhetoric that he has been wholeheartedly engaged in."
Bot-(D) KAK-a-poodle is running out of lies.
But Justice Sotomayor only said that when a person on the RIGHT talked about criminalizing speech. She never said it when those on the LEFT wanted it... and that tells you something about Justice Sotomayor.
"We should not be surprised when a culture that treats words as violence eventually produces people who treat violence as words. The ideology’s own logic leads there.”
https://hollymathnerd.substack.com/p/from-transition-to-transgression?utm_source=substack&publication_id=244892&post_id=173654582&utm_medium=email&utm_content=share&utm_campaign=email-share&triggerShare=true&isFreemail=true&r=5vfmny&triedRedirect=true
Kakistocracy said...
MAGA conservatives are "honoring" Kirk’s memory by refusing to remember anything he said or did and punishing anyone who does.
We just understand that you don’t actually believe in the first amendment.
You only use it as a tool when it is convenient. You never actually adhere to it yourself:
Libs Of Chicago
@Libs_OfChicago
·
Sep 10
Just so we are clear, a Conservative activist is assassinated on a college campus & it’s Donald Trump who we are to blame.
Pritzker has to have shit for brains.
This is the same guy who said “these Republicans cannot know a moment of peace”.
I am very confused why the left is now running with the trans love story.
They are talking up the texts between the killer and his furry roommate.
They can’t believe this is a good idea. Something is wrong.
Again - Gov Pritzker(D) billionaire Radial leftist who demands Chicago stay crime-ridden says -
“these Republicans cannot know a moment of peace”.
Added to the list:
The cowardly left built a hate-machine - then denied they built it. Democratics in power inspired and built the antifa-jihadi network of hate and assassination.
The left's terrorist inspiring words: Repeated daily.
“These Republicans cannot know a moment of peace”. – Gov Pritzker(D)
"Trump is an existential threat to democracy"
"Trump is Hitler"
"Trump is a fascist"
"Trump is a King"
"Trump's supporters are fascists"
"Trump is a Nazi"
“Trump's supporters are Nazis"
"Trump is a dictator and he will end our democracy"
“Trump is an existential threat to democracy”
“Trump’s supporters are an existential threat to democracy”
“We're in a war right now to save this country. And so you have to be willing to do whatever is necessary in order to save the country." – Senator Chris Murphy(D)
“This fascist administration didn’t come from anywhere... We’re gonna fight, fight, FIGHT!” –AOC
"Charlie Kirk wasn’t a fascist. They don’t kill you for being fascist. They call you a fascist so they can kill you."
Let the left's insanity flow.
For all to see.
mikee said...
The main idea of hate speech laws is that the intent of a speaker gets to be determined by the listener. 9/17/25, 7:51 AM
Yes. This is important. This reversal puts all the power for mis- and mal-interpretation in the listener's area of responsibility. ...notwithstanding the LACK of insulting or offensive intent on the part of the speaker.
Anyone's words, no matter how well-meaning when spoken, can be twisted and manipulated in an effort to create an atmosphere of animosity and controversy.
"Criminalize" is a weasel word meaning nothing to a viewpoint that is perfectly content with deplatforming free speech.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson will issue a stinging dissent explaining why "hate speech" by conservatives is not protected by the First Amendment.
KAK - no matter how hard you leftist lie to yourselves and others - the corrupt democratic party killed Charlie Kirk.
US v Them(D)
Yeah, this epiphany, too, will be lost in a back... black hole... whore h/t NAACP at the intersection of queer sexuality, racism, and sexism, when the profits are down.
trans love story
Homosexuals?
Will no one relieve this deplorable "burden" h/t Obama is a fetus or feature of liberal art in semantic play.
“And so ends the decades long push — by the left — to criminalize hate speech. Thanks, Justice Sotomayor!” Dream on! The leftist compulsion to demonize the opposition does not diminish in the least their capacity for hypocrisy.
Over 32,000 requests for new TPUSA campus chapters have been filed since Charlie Kirk’s death.
Over 32,000 requests for new TPUSA campus chapters have been filed since Charlie Kirk’s death.
Kak.
You gotta scrape that kak right off of your shoe…
Peachy, with 23,000 high schools and 6000 universities in the USA, how do they gave 32,000 requests?
“Let the left's insanity flow”
… like a mountain stream, baby…
“how do they gave 32,000 requests?”
Your work here R dun, mark.
Mark - These are requests. do you understand the word "Requests"?
From earlier in the thread:
""Lawyer-trained representative"? Why not just say "lawyer"?"
I think its possible that Justice Sotomayor was trying to distinguish lawyers-as-public intellectuals/commentators/advocacy groups/politicians (or yes, agency heads) from lawyers before Court, who have an obligation to take the "First Amendment doesn't/shouldn't apply" position.
Jimmy Kimmel looks to be the next to lose his job.
The left will claim this is an attack on the first amendment. They are that stupid.
"with 23,000 high schools and 6000 universities in the USA, how do they gave 32,000 requests?"
If you want to understand how stupid the typical leftist is, read the above question by Lefty Mark. Astonishing.
Just a Thought- I agree- she was distinguishing practicing lawywers from those who are trained in the law but don't practice it- she meant to include everyone trained in law school. It is an important distinction.
The left's favorite kind of speech right now.
So the Wise Latina finally smartens up about "hate speech" a long time staple of the Left.
Why is the left doing such a terrible job governing this nation!?!?!?!?
Why did they put inept sycophants and crackpots in cabinet level positions?
Why do they fuck up the economy so badly?
Why did they allow a MAGAt raised assassin to murder Charlie Kirk?
Keep shilling that 32,000 number.
matt gutman, is very foolish, same for montel williams,
In America today, free speech is being used to aggrandize political power in Washington-based executive so that political power is concentrated in a manner similar to and responsive to wealth concentration. The Trump administration is in the process of deciding which billionaire fellow traveler will be given Tik Tok, the premier channeled messaging medium used to reach the screen-only generation.
Over the coming years in America the political contestation is going to trace out a fascinating arc in the debate over freedom and speech.
as I said, there is the practical problem of how section 230 protects the tiktok dancers, and their pagan ways,
"Keep shilling that 32,000 number."
Have you figured out, yet, how 32,000 might not be an outlandish number, Mark, or are you still still stuck on the intellectual starting block?
When I was a lad, judges were rarely seen and never heard. Except for William O. Douglas, who was always marrying younger and younger wives and getting impeached by Gerald Ford. Brennan liked to mouth off sometimes, but Potter Stewart might as well have been a potted plant.
Nowadays, everyone in DC is an unruly child. The city is one giant clown car. See the hearings with "Spartacus" Booker or "Groucho Marxist" Raskin for confirmation.
remember he did date kamala, (montel did)
as a proud latino, sonia just embarasses, once upon a time she comes upon a nut, but thats an outlyer
First of all, 'free speech' is a political position, not a methodological one. What it means is that there should not be any political authority forcing rules on the wider discourse. It doesn't mean that you can't have standards in your own choice of expression, e.g., investigative journalism, scholarly publication, etc. It also does not mean you can't exclude some people or some ideas from your own private forum -- platform monopolies notwithstanding.
High caliber journalism norms and scientific publishing rules have evolved without the 'wise' guiding hand of wannabe government regulators. When such regulators were allowed to operate, the effect on the press and on science was terrible. (Lysenkoism, the Scopes trial, etc. Examples abound.)
The reason for 'free speech' is as follows: the point of discussion and idea dissemination is precisely to discover truths and inform the political process. If political goals are put in control of speech, it short-circuits the process. If anyone knew the truth well enough to determine what is 'demagoguery' and to regulate it, we wouldn't need speech in the first place. We would just ask our wise oracle for answers. But, in practice, letting political power groups dominate the channels of communication is disastruous. That's how you get groupthink and authoritarian hubris that leads to disasters.
I'm also saddened that current day politics colors the understanding of a serious thinker. Regardless of how flawed or hypocritical Musk or Trump are, their petty squabbles with their political adversaries are just the latest examples of authority desiring speech control, while when in opposition they desired speech freedom. This is in fact more evidence of why free speech is such a valuable political right.
Booker allegedly is a rhodes scholar like Kurt Schmolke, the other other wunderkind, now he's just a clown, that key and peele wouldn't bother with,
Poor Mark. Cannot fathom that his vile party's actions have woken a sleeping giant.
only so much fits on the cue card,
one cant forget Sonia, was all for the lockdowns, that became an incubatior for this free floating anxiety, that the progs exploited,
"First of all, 'free speech' is a political position,..."
Then:
"If political goals are put in control of speech, it short-circuits the process."
It may be a political position for some, but first of all, it's a right of free people. Without it, you are not free.
It's a right that supersedes political positions in a free country, at least in principle for those that have them.
There are few, if any nations with free speech as in the U.S., where we too struggle to keep it more than just a political position targeted by power whenever it gets cocky.
that really is painfully stupid, it is an unalienable right given by he creator, the fact that kant and rousseau didn't understand this, explains much of that happened in the 20th century,
she went along with the proscription and possible conviction of a President, much like we've seen in Brazil, she has nothing to say to us,
consider the head of the Oxford Union, abariyoani (sic) probably from a commonwealth country, he debated charlie a few months ago, and wished him dead, I don't know if he read law, literature or philosophy, but that tells you everything,
"And so ends the decades long push — by the left — to criminalize hate speech."
I took that as inspired satire. I hope it was.
yeah, is she trying standup like justice jackson is doing dinner theatre
High caliber journalism norms and scientific publishing rules have evolved without the 'wise' guiding hand of wannabe government regulators.
Ummm, the last 10 years think you should reconsider this particular point.
the only thing more ridiculous was the spin Politico put on it,
"That’s exactly the problem: not violence itself, but how it’s politically framed, excused, or even rewarded."
Somehow I find the murdering more concerning.
"And so ends the decades long push — by the left — to criminalize hate speech. Thanks, Justice Sotomayor!"
I'll believe she's sincere when democrats start removing hate speech add-on penalties from laws currently on the books.
Until then, it's nothing more than a Team D judge worrying that their team might suffer consequences they've been willing to impose on others.
“I've "hated" a lot of jerks on the right and the left.”
Would you say you’re an equal opportunity jerk-hater, enigma?
As I recall Terroristic Threats are a crime.
Lawyer trained representatives”. I bet that Senators are glad that they are OK.
If free speech is a right then why are people arrested for threatening the President?
If Sotomayor says we should not criminalize free speech then does she claim that censorship, as practiced by the Beiden admin, is bad too, or do you have free speech, but the government can make sure no one else can hear you.
“Iman-Would you say you’re an equal opportunity jerk-hater“
Hey, some of my best friends are jerks.
“Hey, some of my best friends are jerks.”
I’m proud to say some of mine are too, Josephbleau!
The most notable aspect of the right-wing criticisms of Pam Bondi's statements on hate speech is that they primarily target Bondi, an easy mark, while largely sparing Trump, despite his clear influence in directing her actions.
People are way overreaching on this issue with Bondi. To me she was clearly speaking to the left when she said hate speech that goes beyond mere speech into criminal actions is not protected by the 1st Amendment.
The corrollory of this statement is that "hate speech" that does not go beyond mere speech is protected by the 1st Amendment.
This is in fact the law of the land.
People are reading to much into the words "hate speech" and not enough into what she actually said. All the examples she gave are actual existing crimes. There was nothing in her statement that implied new laws to criminal hate speech.
Enigma said...
Sotomayor is the smartest Democrat on the USSC, and Bondi is one of weakest members of Trump's team. I hope that these inherently asinine "hate speech" laws will be shut down.
I hate to say it, but I hate hate speech laws.
***********
You will be happy to learn there are NO federal "hate speech" laws.
It pains me to say it, but Sotomayor is exactly right. A formerly blonde hot chick, now the AG, is completely wrong here. If she were a guy, Trump would whack her pee pee.
Cameron said...
People are way overreaching on this issue with Bondi. To me she was clearly speaking ..
***********
If she were clearly speaking we would not be having these conversations!!!
Motard Mark, the relevant pool of people who have requested TPUSA chapters is the total number of STUDENTS In HS and college, not how many campuses exist. Work on your addition skills before attempting any further division or multiplication around here.
LOL Kak wants to blame Trump for Bondi misspeaking, even though she already corrected the record somewhat. You leftists really are rudderless, without a leader to tell you what to say y’all just flail and spin, flail and spin, spin and flail.
LOL…
एक टिप्पणी भेजें
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 2 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.