Takes heat and deserves it.
Among the conservative commentary at the link there is this 2024 tweet from Charlie Kirk himself:
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.
Keep America free.
संदेश
207 टिप्पणियां:
207 का 1 – 200 नए› नवीनतम»She's taking advantage of the wild success of the soap opera explosion against the left, who are the originators of soap opera news, to overreach.
Pam Bondi is not ready for prime time.
Add this to the pile:
Trump when asked about enriching himself and his family business during his presidency by an Aussie reporter:
“You know your leader is coming over to see me very soon. I’m going to tell them about you. You set a very bad tone,”
Can you even imagine if a real US president from a pre brain rot MAGAt era said that?
Ditto. Hate speech, hate laws, and aggravated hate charges are all bogus. Have been since the left came up with them.
Promoted beyond her abilities because of her looks--and slavish devotion to Trump.
Hey D-bag - is she a fascist Nazi - who needs killin'?
there was fighting words doctrine, but Texas v Johnson, erased that, it seems the standard is everything but the Truth,
"Have been since the left came up with them."
The right is pushing back on Bondi's position on hate speech. How many on the left have taken heat from *their* side over that?
Spam Blondie
Pam Bondi is very good at talking aggressively and doing nothing, unless she's serving the interest of American Jews. She's going to be replaced, no matter how positively President Trump speaks of her at any one moment.
After the left built an Trans-tifa Antifa(D) Assassination club - I'm OK with her rhetoric. Even tho I am clear it cannot be stopped.
“People who celebrate the killing of conservative influencer Charlie Kirk should be held accountable, US Vice-President JD Vance has said.
"Call them out, and hell, call their employer," Vance said as he guest-hosted an episode of the Charlie Kirk Show. "We don't believe in political violence, but we do believe in civility."
So, Vance spouts civility bullshit and disregards the speaker’s right to free speech by encouraging retribution for that free speech. This is a “How to intimidate Americans from exercising their 1st Amendments rights”.
Contrast what Vance said to what Charlie Kirk said.
once upon a time, there were these silly things, called terms of service agreements, it turns out they were not worth the paper they were printed on,
Section 230 would probably be a bar for most oft his, though,
Pam Bondige.
The first rule of politics: Never let a tragedy go to waste
Bondi did not make the rules about "hate speech". The left has been yammering on about it for years. But I'm particularly perturbed about "hate crimes" which all too often carry an additional sentence. If you murder somebody, it really shouldn't make a sentencing difference if you did it out of hate or just pure plain cussedness. And yet there it is, hate crimes are on the statute books.
I would like all of the Progressive Leftists here to recognize, if they can bring themselves to, that many commenters here that are conservatives feel quite comfortable in criticizing their leaders when they think they're wrong about something - as the aging Blonde-Barbie-Bondi is, here.
Inag skips past the assassination again.
Having free speech doesn't mean that speech is free from criticism and social ostracization.
Definitely not ready for prime time. I will assume she means laws against incitement to violence, but am willing to be proven wrong by her actual actions. However, let's suppose that she actively enforces the hate speech laws the Left enacted during Obama's and Biden Administrations but then also uses them to target leftists who are attacking Jews with hate speech, for example- how can the Left complain about that in an honest fashion? I want a law that is applied evenly with no regards to what side one is on politically. If hate speech laws are justified in being used against the Right, then they must also be applied against the Left.
the tiktok dancers, (that was extraordinarily stupid btw) are probably safe, but they do remove all doubt as to their judgement
I like this from Zuby.
Conservatives never fought against hate speech laws. Show me the Charlie Kirk quote where he takes on hate laws and antisemitism. Its on reason why the ADL was so broken up by his death.
Republicans have helped D's in almost every state pass "hate speech laws" because they desparately want to show everyone they're not raciss, sexist, bigophobes.
But now we're supposed to go attack Bondi because Democrats are the victims. No can do.
Look, there’s not a leftwing speaker that has to fear for their safety when speaking on a campus or anywhere else.
And there never has been. Let’s get real.
thats what she meant, no they can't, as they enabled the whole J6 plantados,
Some people nuke themselves
Vance doesn't want to be assassinated by people he may have tried to unite with. Until the leaders of your party speak out loud and clear that your sides hate is destroying your party, we don't trust or believe anything any of you have to say anymore. Why would we.
I mean the Louisiana judge couldn't hold Khalil even though he explicitly said 'kill the jews' in Arabic, so lets get real here,
“Having free speech doesn't mean that speech is free from criticism and social ostracization.”
Just ask YOUR people to refrain from assassination, Howard.
If that’s even possible.
THe funniest thing about this is that fat Neocon Fuck Erick Erickson was tweeting an attack on Bondi for "betraying free speech". This is the same clown that was demanding J6ers be "Shot down like dogs". And later justified the statement by saying he wanted all protesters shot down by the police!
And of course, all the liberal/leftist are shrieking with fake Outrage. The same types that hate Musk for "letting fascists and Trumpists back on Twitter".
eggman erickson, is a very silly man, and he has been that way for a long time,
its like Charlie Browns teacher, its unintelligible background noise
Clarifying that she was talking about incitement doesn't make it better. If that's what she was talking about, she should have used that word. She's a lawyer ffs.
And the proposal to charge the Office Depot employee with civil rights violations is ridiculous. Political opinion discrimination is not a violation of civil rights, it's just being a dick, and being a dick is a constitutional right. That's what the bake the cake case was about!
Bondi is on thin ice with all this. Trump can't afford this sort of weak link on his team.
If we're going to ditch our traditions of free speech, it may make it easier to eradicate and eliminate Islam from our Great Secular Republic.
I may have to rethink my criticism.
it is striking how that is a step too far for them,
I look at the practical, and then the theoretical
we will see what is presented on paper,
She prosecuted Robert Zimmerman. She’s a complete blonde bimbo hack. I guess she’s hot though.
Pam Bondi seems to have taken her lessons on free speech from Tim Walz. They sound identical.
no she had angela corey do it,
Almost all the political violence is coming from the Left. And that's been true for a long time. There is no rightwing equivilent of antifa. Rightwingers aren't coming out and instigating violence every time Leftwingers protest. There are a long list of trannie and trannie friendly killers and assassins. Show me the crazed christians shooting up Gay Pride parades or Rightwingers trying to kill Democrat political leaders.
Everytime there was a Trump march in 2016, "violence broke out" - which is code word for "antifa showed up and attacked them".
We don't have a "Free speech" problem. We have a leftwing violence problem. These people and their moneybag supporters need to be put in jail.
and it's george zimmerman, (the fellow they coined the white hispanic, squirrel for)
Harmeet Dhillon doesn't look very happy whenever she's part of the standing entourage at press conferences. The misfortune of having an inferior as your boss.
Hag: "Can you even imagine if a real US president from a pre brain rot MAGAt era said that?"
Yeah - worse than when Trump said "Sunofabitch, they fired the guy!" Or when he joked about targeting people with IRS audits. CC, JSM
*sigh*
Loose lips sink fidelity to the written law. She needs to do better, but she's what we get with Trump. Compared to the alternative, I'll take it. That said, do better.
besides she won't be handling the case, whoever the local prosecutor would (admittedly its kind of an overreach)
Every time a dedicated leftist quotes Charlie Kirk - it's their snide little way to say - 'he deserved what he got because he spoke out with an opinion counter to the corrupt left.
This called "policing your own" so that when a stupid idea finds purchase, or (IMO) appears to find purchase, on our side we say no quickly and harshly and reiterate first principles. This is yet another way in which WE ARE NOT THE SAME.
Blair at 11:26 yes 100% agree. She's one of those that find it very difficult to say "I misspoke."
or threatening the Supreme Court 'if the arc of justice' didnt go his way, (it worked by the way)
So, Vance spouts civility bullshit and disregards the speaker’s right to free speech by encouraging retribution for that free speech.
The Constitution doesn't say you can speak without further consequence, only that the government cannot stop you from speaking in the first instance. I have had a judge explicitly state this proposition when opposing counsel sought to enjoin my client from speaking about a litigation on defamation grounds - "I can't stop you from speaking, but I can damn well make you pay after you have spoken."
"Do more than just talk.
Tear down the well-funded leftist networks that build permission structures for terrorism and violence."
Free speech - bitches
Bondi is on the right track. Go after leftists for hate speech. The only way to ensure free speech is to adhere to neutral principles. The only way to adhere to neutral principles is first ti subject the Hate Law Zealots to prosecution. Reality is the best teacher.
https://x.com/DataRepublican/status/1967758989791465856
note they went after libs of tiktok, chaiyek for pointing out their own words,
If using Chuck Kirk’s actual words make you think that it’s an attempt to smear him, just try and imagine how hateful it sounds to sane folks, not drinking MAGAt kool-aid
“Disagreement is normal. Wishing death is deeply evil.”
—— Zuby
Fuck off, hag.
its a rather intricate support system,
Pam Blondi has been a REAL disappointment.
1st she DIDN'T press charges, on LOTS of charges..
2nd she said (and i QUOTE):
"i was one of Jeffrey Epstein’s whores, i could no more release a list of the clients THEN, then i would release a list of my Current clients"
NOW she says that:
"IF ANYONE thinks like Charlie Kirk did, i'll throw them in jail!:
advocating MURDER, is not "hate speech"; it's advocating MURDER
and probably the 2008 prosecution agreements and the 2002 settlements, limit any further action, I can walk and chew gum at the same time,
IF hate speech were illegal, most of the people HERE would be looking at charges.
The constitution and the first amendment are contracts.
The left does not abide by these contracts. We will not be able to live with the freedom and trust in society while there are people breaking that contract in our midst.
The left killed Charlie Kirk, the person who embodied that contract and in so doing they have negated that contract.
We are now going to renegotiate that contract. There are going to be stipulations added because there are a bunch of murderous animals that abuse the freedoms they never earned in order to take those freedoms from people like Charlie Kirk.
There is no such thing as Hate Speech. Pam Bondi should know better.
Just not on THIS blog.
On this blog, your speech can get you banned by the host. Like Trump wants to do to the NY Times.
2022 settlements, when the left is out of power, they cried about the NSA and the CIA, and the Patriot Act,
no, just wants his pound of flesh, compounded over years of abuse,
TeaBagHag said...
If using Chuck Kirk’s actual words make you think that it’s an attempt to smear him, just try and imagine how hateful it sounds to sane folks, not drinking MAGAt kool-aid
TBH thinks Kirk was a racist and a fascist.
TBH also thinks using his quotes about free speech now after calling him a fascist and a racist and killing him is persuasive.
Now that Kirk is dead TBH finds him very useful.
They are animals. Absolutely despicable animals.
Perhaps Ms. Bondi's threats, constitutionally wrong although perfectly legal under the statutes currently in place, may inspire legislators to reconsider "Hate Speech" laws.
But I doubt it.
Some lefties may be hoist on their own petard.
the link above, is more indicative of the method
Douch -BAG democratic
You and your hiveminders use Charlie Kirk quotes in misleading ways.. and so what if perhaps Kirk was wrong on something. so? You got all his words? What about your cowardly leftist vile evil words?
Your words are not memorable - because you speak lies and hot garbage - just like Pritzker or Adam Schitt.
This is where we have to bring out Iñigo Montoya to tell Pam, "You keep using those words. I do not think you know what they mean ... or what the legal system interprets them as meaning ...."
the group in the link is Armed ***** SLC, part of a UN recognized NGO, funded by AID and other parties,
Utah Global Diplomacy, headed by Ermiya Faniean, no joke
She is an example of some of the worst GOP Lawyer Barbie's out there. [On the Dem side, there are plenty of unattractive Lawyer Dragons] Smart enough to get into law school. Pretty enough to run for office or build a pundit gig, but lacking in critical thinking skills. Just like Trump - in fact, I wonder if Trump ordered her to make those comments and she fell in line because he (and Susie Wiles, who should know better) are her safety cones.
you have an army of locusts, actually threatening murder or taking a real joyous delight in the act, tell me how to proceed,
boatbuilder said, "Some lefties may be hoist on their own petard."
An MP friend of mine said it best when he said that offenders/suspects are always in control of the level of escalation. Always. Police, MPs, Right-Wing-Death-Squads, hostage negotiators...all of them.
Leftist protagonists are in control of which level they desire going to. It appears large numbers are no longer content with bellicosity, pugnacity or death threats (which are illegal already) and have, are, and will kill their ideological opponents.
We don't need "hate speech" laws to match their escalation when bullets and organized militias will do...they have chosen their level of escalation.
Speech policing is unnecessary.
We're already their huckleberry.
Igna wrote:
So, Vance spouts civility bullshit and disregards the speaker’s right to free speech by encouraging retribution for that free speech. This is a “How to intimidate Americans from exercising their 1st Amendments rights”.
***************
No employeee has a right say any damn thing they want. If their employer feels their public speech makes his company look bad, he can fire them at will.
Can't you get this through your thick head?
Dumber than a box of rocks. Hard to think of an option that works be a worse AG.
This is a “How to intimidate Americans from exercising their 1st Amendments rights”.
When the left does it, they just shoot you to shut you up.
bagpipe barr was the worst, in so many ways, so was sessions,
Not much ever gets through Igna’s thick head. She represents the base of the Democrat party.
like they had the wrong script
Charlie Kirk’s message was simple — the American dream is dead for young people. Fair enough — student debt, housing costs, childcare costs — grew explosively over the past 30 years.
But Kirk didn’t offer any solutions. Just blame. Watch his speech at the Republican National Convention. Blame, blame, elect Trump. That’s it.
His organization, Turning Point USA, has a budget of $85 million a year. The organization is funded by a collection of wealthy conservative groups and individuals. Much is dark money. TPUSA became a significant force in the Republican 2024 turn out the vote effort.
Kirk profited handily for leading TPUSA - $400K a year in salary, plus over $5 million from his podcast and speaking engagements. A sweet gig.
I’m certain much of the praise and outpouring of grief since his murder is genuine. But much is not. Maintaining the attention and anger of Gen Z through the midterms is clearly in this administration’s playbook.
The GOP strategy of blame and disinformation has been working so far, so they have incentive to keep it going
does anyone have a practical solution how to solve this problem,
Imagine what Joe Biden would have done with this power.
we know where the kamikazi scotsman, hang their hat,
we don't have to imagine it, see douglas mackey, the memester,
Hate on the liberal edge. Beware the Ouroboros progression.
Serous projection from the Chorus line. “ Blame and disinformation” are two of their favorite weapons.
Trump and dummy puppet Bondi have already identified the target they’re coming after, hate speech or free speech be damned. And let’s be clear — ‘hate speech’ has no legal definition in America. That makes it a convenient excuse to punish speech coming from people they don’t like.
She qualified it as "hate speech with threats of violence". Speech is protected, assault is not.
the Proud Boys and others were tried for seditious conspiracy,
for what I have no idea,
So many of us predicted this when the left insisted that we enact laws against "hate speech" targeting minorities.
Inga said:
"President JD Vance has said.
"Call them out, and hell, call their employer," Vance said as he guest-hosted an episode of the Charlie Kirk Show. "We don't believe in political violence, but we do believe in civility."
So, Vance spouts civility bullshit and disregards the speaker’s right to free speech by encouraging retribution for that free speech. This is a “How to intimidate Americans from exercising their 1st Amendments rights”.
Contrast what Vance said to what Charlie Kirk said."
9/16/25, 11:07 AM
Compare what Vance said now, to what Maxine Waters, and the rest of your leaders said then.... And WE didn't kill anybody.
https://youtu.be/tJCDe7vdFfw
https://pjmedia.com/matt-margolis/2025/09/16/bidens-fbi-targeted-charlie-kirks-turning-point-usa-n4943765
Somebody said that FLC had been banned, but I guess that was disinfo.
Wouldn't it be nice if FLC would get his own blog, since this one doesn't meet his standards?
Top row dems - "war!"
Bottom row dems--> After their guy kills Charlie Kirk
link here
I would say they are two faced, but its more like the cube in hellraiser,
Most of Kirk’s supporters are chronically online. They’ve convinced themselves that a conservative podcaster with a niche college following is a universally recognized and widely admired figure.
Kirk was not a political figure. The vocal minority doesn’t represent the broader population, and that’s what frustrates me. There’s a lot of talk in right-wing spaces, especially on conservative blogs claiming this is a galvanizing moment and that the “left” is doomed because it will unite everyone against them. But what they fail to grasp is that only the chronically online care about this.
today, it turns out is national voter registration day, thats just a coincidence
“Somebody said that FLC had been banned, but I guess that was disinfo.”
IIRC, the last time Althouse had trouble with Former Law Clerk Fen, she stopped allowing comments to be published immediately and had to approve them first.
The first amendment does not apply when a non government person denys me something due to my speech.
effeneyright said -
"No employee has a right say any damn thing they want. If their employer feels their public speech makes his company look bad, he can fire them at will."
Remember - leftists assume they are the Mussolini or Castro.. In power over everyone. they can do and say anything they want.
🔝 When the media fire reporters for quoting Charlie Kirk, it’s not for political reasons. It’s because the text violates their policies on racism and inciting violence. 😉
I don't understand why the Dems and the Lawyer Industry don't understand the 'one set of rules' concept. Who wants to play a game with 2 sets of rules?
Is Bondi wrong about the law? Here's what she said: Bondi clarified that she will target “hate speech that crosses the line into threats of violence,” which she said “is NOT protected by the First Amendment.” “For far too long, we’ve watched the radical left normalize threats, call for assassinations, and cheer on political violence. That era is over,” Bondi wrote on X Tuesday morning.
“You cannot call for someone’s murder,” she went on. “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.”
"Who wants to play a game with 2 sets of rules?"
They do. They'll fail.
btw the first suspect, george zinn, admitted he was an accessory to tyler,
Methinks Ms. Pammy is way over her head.
Imagine that publicly murdering one of their leaders made them angry. I am sure that telling us to “put some ice on it” will calm the waters. Look how well it is working in London!
"Hate speech does not exist legally in America"
But using the wrong word during an argument or fight can be a hate crime.
"Most of Kirk’s supporters are chronically online."
Yes, KAK actually said that.
hes like will farrell character in the two austin powers films,
She's following the Trump script where abominations self-abort when exposed to the light.
again terms of service agreements should apply but they don't
"They do."
They're sure whining now that their opponent is making it known that "two sets of rules" is no longer acceptable.
I have a compromise- "two rules" stays, and it's the left's turn to be held to them while the right is free to do what they want.
Deal?
they could be charged with misprision of felony,
“Hate speech” was an unfortunate choice of words. Just “speech” would have been adequate. Her critics do not seem to be disputing her references to provisions of Title 18, nor do they acknowledge DOJ’s recent accomplishments before the SCOTUS. Also, Michelle Teller, documents other accomplishments of Bondi’s DOJ in an Instapundit comment section despite her stepping into a nest of vipers. Bondi has “put her foot in her mouth” on occasion, but to suggest that typifies her tenure is absurd. And to my knowledge, Charlie Kirk never suggested repeal of those provisions of Title 18 cited by Bondi who is sworn to enforce them.
https://www.newsnationnow.com/crime/first-man-arrested-charlie-kirk-shooter-escape/
Remind me, when did Charlie Kirk or any other sane being say there should be no consequences for threatening or inciting violence? Bondi just needs a better ghost writer.
"Hate speech that crosses the line into violence" is not hate speech, it's violence.
We are supposed to punish violence, not speech.
Hate speech is a 1st Amendment right.
I’m certain much of the praise and outpouring of grief since his murder is genuine. But much is not.
I can see saying this about George Floyd. (Actually I can't see saying that "much of the praise and outpouring of grief... is genuine," since it clearly wasn't.) But Charlie Kirk? You really think his murder didn't shake people up?
Robert Wright and Glenn Loury both side-ism, a quote from Kirk that surprised me given what a nice guy he's supposed to have been. Soap opera is not mentioned.
Every American has a right to hate who and what they want, and to say so.
Kakistocracy said...
Charlie Kirk’s message was simple — the American dream is dead for young people. Fair enough — student debt, housing costs, childcare costs — grew explosively over the past 30 years.
But Kirk didn’t offer any solutions. Just blame. Watch his speech at the Republican National Convention. Blame, blame, elect Trump. That’s it.
We get it. You hated Kirk and wanted him dead. You got your wish.
You didn’t like our first amendment contract. Kirk said things you didn’t like so you killed him.
Now we are going to renegotiate the contract.
Mason G said...
"They do."
They're sure whining now that their opponent is making it known that "two sets of rules" is no longer acceptable.
I have a compromise- "two rules" stays, and it's the left's turn to be held to them while the right is free to do what they want.
Deal?
There are several ways this renegotiation can go down.
On this blog, your speech can get you banned by the host. Like Trump wants to do to the NY Times.
I still strongly suspect that FLC is really the odious Chuck.
Stephen L. Miller
@redsteeze
·
11m
Are we doing that toning down the rhetoric thing?
Quote
Chuck Schumer
@SenSchumer
·
51m
By refusing to sit down with Democrats:
Republicans are telling the American people that they are happy to help Donald Trump burn this country down and they’re happy to let the government shut down.
Bondi shit the bed over the Trayvon Martin incident. Didn't like her when Trump appointed her and she's done nothing but confirm it was a bad decision.
Let us not forget she's the one who ran her mouth about the Epstein files and then did jackshit when it was time to put up.
Left getting trolled again.
They were spewing "hate speech" venom for years, and now apparently they're swinging back around to "free speech" and saying that there's no 1st Amendment exception for hate speech.
They're right of course (this time), but they'll be nailed for hypocrisy on twitter/X with side by side quotes if they are not careful....
And they were "all in" for years on "your employer is a private party and they can fire you for ... not taking the jab, not wearing a mask, etc.". Interesting (but not surprising) to see their outrage now over people being fired for saying/posing hateful/horrible things about Kirk and political assassinations.
Gee, not so giddy when you have to live up to your own rules...
By the way, I note the strenuous pushback from people on the Right (including here) against Bondi's invocation of "hate speech." I am not aware of a single leftist or Democrat criticizing Gov. Tim Walz for almost the exact same formulation. It's almost as if lefties only care about free speech when an opportunity for performative criticism is presented.
MAGA = Democrats 2.0.
Left getting trolled again.
That's my impression as well. So, who's next to be aborted in the public space, in our face, is the question.
Nothing's being done about loathing speech yet.
Freeman Hunt said...
MAGA = Democrats 2.0.
Brilliant assertion.
Hard to argue with something that is so well thought out and supported.
Jim at said...
Bondi shit the bed over the Trayvon Martin incident. Didn't like her when Trump appointed her and she's done nothing but confirm it was a bad decision.
Let us not forget she's the one who ran her mouth about the Epstein files and then did jackshit when it was time to put up.
She is obviously not very good at her job. I wish we had someone else in that position.
Hopefully she is replaced sooner rather than later.
I'm wondering if she deliberately stepped on this rake to distract and deflate some of the RW anger I've seen on line. She reminds us not to follow the Left's fascist path by talking about doing so.
Am I being charitable because she's a woman? Has the power gone to her head?
Ralph L said...
I'm wondering if she deliberately stepped on this rake to distract and deflate some of the RW anger I've seen on line. She reminds us not to follow the Left's fascist path by talking about doing so.
Am I being charitable because she's a woman? Has the power gone to her head?
I haven’t seen her actually accomplish anything good.
Maybe that would be a good thing under normal circumstances but if half the justice department hasn’t been fired by now she is not doing her job properly.
The only time I have seen her is when she fucked up the Epstein file release and now when she talks about hate speech like an idiot.
The clip that's causing outrage on X was obviously shortened by The Bulwark. We should not assume it's accurate--could be a "fine people" elision.
Has anyone seen the full interview? Lawyers are usually more careful.
T
Pam Bondi's Department of Justice has removed a study showing that white supremacist and far-right violence “continues to outpace all other types of terrorism and domestic violent extremism” in the United States. The study, conducted by the National Institute of Justice and hosted on a DOJ website, was available there until September 12, 2025.
The study shows that: “Since 1990, far-right extremists have committed far more ideologically motivated homicides than far-left or radical Islamist extremists, including 227 events that took more than 520 lives,” the study said. “In this same period, far-left extremists committed 42 ideologically motivated attacks that took 78 lives.”
There can be no hiding that the Oklahoma City bombing was a domestic terrorist attack that occurred on April 19, 1995, when a truck bomb exploded outside the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, killing 168 people (including 19 children) and injuring hundreds more. It was carried out by right-wing nutcases, Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, motivated by anti-government sentiments, and remains the deadliest act of domestic terrorism in U.S. history
There was no reason given as to why the study about far-right extremist violence was removed recently. Still, it comes immediately after the assassination of MAGA personality Charlie Kirk, accompanied by accusations from the Trump administration that the left is responsible for most of the political violence in the country, and a renewed commitment from the administration to crack down on the “radical left.”
Elon Musk is playing the same game on X, when he tweeted that he was going to “fix” the platform’s AI assistant Grok after it cited research that showed right-wing violence was more common than left-wing violence: “My apologies, we are fixing this cringe idiocy by Grok,” he said.
I think Trump clear this issue up;
JONATHAN KARL: And what do you make Pam Bondi saying she’s going to go after hate speech? Is that, I mean, a lot of people, a lot of your allies say hate speech is free speech.
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: She’d probably go after people like you! Because you treat me so unfairly! It’s hate! You have a lot of hate in your heart!
JONATHAN KARL: Would that be appropriate?
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Maybe they’ll come after ABC. Well, ABC paid me 16 million dollars recently for a form of hate speech, right? Your company paid me $16 million for a form of hate speech, so maybe they’ll have to go after you.
Look, we want everything to be fair. It hasn’t been fair. And the radical left has done tremendous damage to the country, but we’re fixing it.
We have right now the hottest country anywhere in the world. And remember, one year ago, our country was dead. And now Washington D.C. Is fixed, and I fix it.
The mayor was fine. The mayor, the mayor was just fine, okay? The mayor had the sick city for many years. She’s been mayor for many years.
The one that fixed it was me and my people, and it is so safe. You should take your beautiful wife tonight and have dinner down there.
You won’t be shot, you won’t get accosted, you won’t even be looked at incorrectly by anybody.
Washington, D.C. Is safe, now we’re going to Memphis where it’s pretty rough, to put it mildly. And then we’re gonna have to go. A friend of mine who is a big railroader.
"hate speech that crosses the line into threats of violence,”
- Bondi
The nexus of liberal license and abortive ideation following progressive principles. #HateLovesAbortion
I'm trying to figure out if Bondi was trial ballooning on her own or what?
Reddit: Found a clip of her saying it.
Just so I'm 100% clear on what I'm reading: People on the left are AGREEING that "hate speech" is a completely bullshit category because whether something is classified as hate speech or not is based entirely on the whims of whoever has the power to punish that speech? And we agree that this is a bad thing? And that no one should have that power? And that there is a very bright line between speech and action with only very distinct and narrowly defined exceptions like imminent incitement? So any "hate speech" laws or regulations should be repealed? And politicians who try to punish someone for "hate speech" are committing obvious violations of constitutional rights?
OH GLORY HALLELUJAH! A miracle has occurred! I have been waiting for this moment since the idiotic term "hate speech" first appeared over 30 years ago. Vindication at last!
(and all it took was Pam Biondi saying a bunch of dipshit stuff? Who would have thought!)
What do they have in common?
Three major assassination cases in US courts today.
Luigi Mangione, Ryan Routh and Tyler Robinson.
What do they have in common?
Hasn't speech that slides into violence always been considered illegal? All AGPB did was signal that the line not to cross is being shifted to the right.
Good.
Dang it, original Mike!
“JONATHAN KARL: And what do you make Pam Bondi saying she’s going to go after hate speech? Is that, I mean, a lot of people, a lot of your allies say hate speech is free speech.
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: She’d probably go after people like you! Because you treat me so unfairly! It’s hate! You have a lot of hate in your heart!”
Trump threatens a reporter with legal ramifications because Trump is a toddler who cries “unfair!” So is Trump saying unfair speech is now hate speech?
“I still strongly suspect that FLC is really the odious Chuck.”
You may be right. I have seen that “FLC” can’t discern January 2024, from January 2025.
“And politicians who try to punish someone for "hate speech" are committing obvious violations of constitutional rights?”
Needy pathetic politicians like Trump…
They hate me and are unfair to me, so I’m gonna get them! We can suspend the Constitution and pretend that I dictate what is hate speech.
“Oh well… I woke up this morning and Igna is still alive!!!”
Inotaman threatened to kill me! Achilles agrees.
Don't you have anything better to do with your life?
Free speech protects ideas, debate, even dissent but it does NOT and will NEVER protect violence.
Critical Racists' Theory
Bring knives and guns
Get in their faces
Albinophobia
Abort a "burden"
Would probably not be protected.
Well said!
https://x.com/Heminator/status/1968010768764547569
Prof. M. Drout said...
"Just so I'm 100% clear on what I'm reading: People on the left are AGREEING that "hate speech" is a completely bullshit category because whether something is classified as hate speech or not is based entirely on the whims of whoever has the power to punish that speech?"
Yeah. It's almost like she did that on purpose.
Thank you for your support and peaceful return home. Would be protected.
The Pelosi-rrection, Whitmer conspiracy, etc, would not.
Prof M. Drout at 4:01pm
People on the left are AGREEING that "hate speech" is a completely bullshit category...
Good point. Maybe this another one of Trump's judo moves.
Entertaining abortive ideation and other calls to violence in public, outside of a gas chamber, human rites clinic, etc. would not be protected speech.
Gadfly,
Islamic radicals killed almost 3,000 on 9/11 alone. So that Study is total bullshit.
Good point. Maybe this another one of Trump's judo moves.
…if it is it’s a good one. People couldn’t get to their keyboards fast enough…
gadfly said...
Pam Bondi's Department of Justice has removed a study showing that white supremacist and far-right violence “continues to outpace all other types of terrorism and domestic violent extremism” in the United States. The study, conducted by the National Institute of Justice and hosted on a DOJ website, was available there until September 12, 2025.
Gadfly wants everyone to know that a bunch of democrats at the NIJ wrote a report showing that Republicans are violent and that makes it OK to kill them and justifies the assassination of Charlie Kirk.
MAGA = Democrats 2.0.
Oh for the days of Jeb Bush. He was a real Republican!
If only Trump could be more respectful and nice and take one hundred percent conservative positions, y'know like Charlie Kirk. Then everything would be OK.
"People on the left are AGREEING that "hate speech" is a completely bullshit category..."
Only because they're afraid they're going to be held to the same standards they hold others to. The real test is whether or not they will support removing hate speech laws from the books.
I'm guessing no.
@Mason G, they said that if Trump was re-elected he may use tactics the dems used to go after everyone else in the country for decades...and they were right!
I think it is a mistake to justify free speech in a purely instrumental way. Aside from free speech allowing us to find truth and deliberate on who should govern us, it also also valuable to the sovereign self.
Many authors argue that free speech is justified by our interests as speakers--one's capacity to be the reflective authors of our own lives. The value of self-expression is not always depend on the availability of a willing audience, we may have an interest in declaring who we are from the rooftops no matter who hear us. This is why freedom of what we write in a diary or journal (as shown by Orwell) is also plausibly protected from government interference--regardless of whether our writing persuades others of an objective truth or not. To not have this capacity would be to lose a key part of the expression of who we are.
This interest to the self is one reason why free speech should be prima facie protected. The author is correct that there should be constraints on the ability of private actors to artifically emphasize the voice of who benefits their commericial interests. But, at the same time, excess regulations (favored by many on the modern left) runs the risk of giving government power over the sovereign self, which is a bizarre thing to do because it would mean to outsource our capacities to those who have not lived our lives nor share our thoughts.
“The real test is whether or not they will support removing hate speech laws from the books.”
There are no hate speech laws in the US, am I wrong?
"@Mason G, they said that if Trump was re-elected he may use tactics the dems used to go after everyone else in the country for decades...and they were right!"
What's funny (not ha-ha funny) about this is all the sputtering about how, if Trump does the stuff he says he's going to do, it'll just be handing that power to the Democrats when they manage to get themselves back in charge.
As if they haven't been using that power all along.
But, at the same time, excess regulations (favored by many on the modern left) runs the risk of giving government power over the sovereign self, which is a bizarre thing to do because it would mean to outsource our capacities to those who have not lived our lives nor share our thoughts.
Holy moly, I agree with Kak.
To the convenience store, to buy a lottery ticket!
Bondi is dead wrong. If the 1st Amendment doesn't protect hate speech, then it doesn't serve much purpose, especially when the hate speech is over politics and policy.
And some people also are deluded enough to think that you should be able to say anything, regardless of how it affects your employer, and he has to keep paying you. Really? If your employee tells everyone that they wish your entire family was wiped out by a serial killer, because you are a racist, you think you should be forced to continue to pay them unless they steal the toilet paper.
One of the main reasons I keep coming back to read Althouse Blog is that she is one of the few bloggers left who still believes in free speech. Powerline, Instapundit, Legal Insurrection, and many more conservative blogs are all on board for curtailing the free speech rights of those who disagree with Trump. They really believe that everyone who disagrees with Trump is engaging in "hate speech" and must be silenced. It was never like this under Reagan.
First step, ban phrase "hate speech" as a slur against any comments you dislike.
"Lem Vibe Bandit said...
I'm trying to figure out if Bondi was trial ballooning on her own or what?
Reddit: Found a clip of her saying it.
9/16/25, 3:55 PM"
Read the comments there. They make our leftys seem only mildly insane..
In this vortex of bullshit, Bondi got caught.
It was like when DJT said there should be some sort of punishment for women that have abortions. Logically, if you are against abortion you should punish the women that instigate the baby murder. But...the longtime anti-abortion folks knew that you shouldn't say that out loud because it is very unpopular. Instead you say that you'd go after the providers, not the women that are causing the murder.
Here, Bondi is thinking that it's great to go after anyone that doesn't say nice things about Chuck. She's so mega maga that it doesn't occur to her that it is folks on the right that love expressing hate speech. And, they hate anti-hate-speech.
She just needed to tweak her language such right-y folks would know that they could always keep up with their hate speech.
Trump learned that you can't say that you'd go after the gals that are seeking and getting baby murder, likewise Bondi needs to learn that you can't say that you are going after hate speech.
She probably needs to say that she's going after speech that causes social disorder/lawlessness. And then only go after libs that say stuff that is anti-MAGA. That will sound better to the MAGA hate speech lovers. They will be free to speak. IOW, she needs to go with a version of the argument that DJT says is his justification for making flag burning illegal: you burnt a flag, hence you are inciting a violent reaction = illegal. Likewise Bondi can go w/: you said mean things about Chuck, hence you are inciting a violent reaction = illegal.
Ur welcome, Pam.
Lonejustice said: "Powerline, Instapundit, Legal Insurrection, and many more conservative blogs are all on board for curtailing the free speech rights of those who disagree with Trump."
I hope that's not true. if you provided specific examples of their support for illegal government suppression of free speech, I'd reconsider. I haven't seen anything more than a desire to see defamation laws enforced and to see the public shaming of those with odious beliefs. I do think that people in the military or diplomatic corps should not express opinions that make it seem that they can not do their jobs.
i dislike defamation suits. They are playthings for the rich and , despite constitutional safeguards, are subject to the emotions and prejudices of juries, which are capable of finding just about whatever they feel like. They could find any of us guilty of sexual assault from decades ago, when the complainant cannot even identify the date of the heinous act. Once one side misuses litigation, it makes it much more likely that the other side will more than reciprocate.
Powerline, Instapundit, Legal Insurrection, and many more conservative blogs are all on board for curtailing the free speech rights of those who disagree with Trump."
You're such a lying piece of shit.
LI has said nothing of the sort. Nor has PL.
And I just came over from Instapundit where conservatives are beating the tar out of Pam Bondi over this.
Link to the exact posts you're referring to, or shut the fuck up.
The MAGA folks don't care about America. All that matters is loyalty to DJT. You can't consider skin color when looking for a diverse student body, but you sure as hell use skin color to have armed representatives of the government force you to show your papers or else you're going to jail. Well they are only targeting brown skin, so no big deal.
And who the F cares that DJT is doing all sorts of tariffs that are not allowed by the Constitution? Oh, he's doing it because he declared an emergency. Got it. Then it's totally fine.
Likewise, Bondi just needs to tweak the language so we all know that only the anti-MAGA speech will be made illegal. Like I already said, you just need to say that anti-MAGA speech incites violence, like flag burning.
Same stuff for gun rights. Take the guns from the trans folks. After that, God is opposed to gays, so it seems dangerous for them to have guns too. And, the libs that say being trans is not a mental illness are also dangerous because they support dangerous trans folks, so no guns for them.
You just need to make sure the arguments won't catchup the mega maga folks. Then it's full steam ahead w/ DJT getting what DJT wants. It's easy to find a way to manipulate the Constitution. You just need five votes, and it'll say anything DJT wants it to.
"Nor has PL."
Today's posts on Powerline:
Tim Walz/Minnesota: 3
Kirk assassination: 2
Bondi/free speech: 0
bagoh20 writes: "Bondi is dead wrong. If the 1st Amendment doesn't protect hate speech, then it doesn't serve much purpose, especially when the hate speech is over politics and policy."
At a time of deep division, Pam Bondi unified Americans from across the political spectrum.
le Douanier said...
The MAGA folks don't care about America. All that matters is loyalty to DJT. You can't consider skin color when looking for a diverse student body, but you sure as hell use skin color to have armed representatives of the government force you to show your papers or else you're going to jail. Well they are only targeting brown skin, so no big deal.
le Douanier wants everyone to know that MAGA people are racist and fascist and should be killed..
lonejustice said...
One of the main reasons I keep coming back to read Althouse Blog is that she is one of the few bloggers left who still believes in free speech. Powerline, Instapundit, Legal Insurrection, and many more conservative blogs are all on board for curtailing the free speech rights of those who disagree with Trump. They really believe that everyone who disagrees with Trump is engaging in "hate speech" and must be silenced. It was never like this under Reagan.
lonejustice wants everyone to know that all conservative bloggers are against free speech and should be killed.
"Powerline, Instapundit, Legal Insurrection, and many more conservative blogs are all on board for curtailing the free speech rights of those who disagree with Trump."
Post a link to a blog post on Powerline that advocates for curtailing the free speech rights of those who disagree with Trump.
Mason G said...
"Powerline, Instapundit, Legal Insurrection, and many more conservative blogs are all on board for curtailing the free speech rights of those who disagree with Trump."
Post a link to a blog post on Powerline that advocates for curtailing the free speech rights of those who disagree with Trump.
These people are not willing to engage on a rational level. They are dishonest and they are just hoping that the people who run those blogs gets killed.
Inga said...
“The real test is whether or not they will support removing hate speech laws from the books.”
There are no hate speech laws in the US, am I wrong?
9/16/25, 6:10 PM
No, you are correct, I believe. There are no Hate Speech laws, but Hate Speech is a charge that enhances a criminal sentence. If they charge you with it and find you guilty, you get a few more years onto the sentence.
At least that's how I understand it.
"There are no Hate Speech laws, but Hate Speech is a charge that enhances a criminal sentence."
That's what I meant. At least one person figured that out, I see.
So- the real test is whether or not the left will support removing hate speech add-on penalties from laws on the books.
I'm still guessing no.
Give these folks a taste of what those who may not hold the same beliefs as them have been hearing for far too long. Gov. Tim Walz is a good example of “these folks”…
Do a burnout on a rainbow- or trans-painted crosswalk on a public street.
Then get back to me about 'laws' dealing with hate-speech, Inga.
Some things must change.
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.