"There's free speech and then there's hate speech, and there is no place, especially now, especially after what happened to Charlie, in our society. ... We will absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech."
"That sounds like the sort of thing that maybe could be true, especially coming from a nominally authoritative figure like the attorney general of the United States. But she's incorrect. The law doesn't make such a distinction. The point has been reinforced by none other than Justice Samuel Alito, certainly no wilting liberal."
"Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express 'the thought that we hate.'"
"Actually, she won't. She won't 'target' or 'go after' anyone for 'hate speech,' because, legally, there is no such thing as 'hate speech' in the United States, and because, as a government employee, she is bound by the First Amendment. And if she tries it anyway? The Supreme Court will side against her, 9-0."
Pam Bondi declared on a podcast that there is free speech and hate speech and promised to target people who engage in hate speech, citing the shooting of Charlie Kirk. Commentators across the spectrum rejected the legal basis for her claim, noting U.S. law does not recognize a categorical hate-speech exception to the First Amendment. Justice Samuel Alito's 2017 opinion reaffirmed protection for even hateful expression. Conservative commentators warned that government attempts to punish hate speech would violate the First Amendment and would likely fail in the Supreme Court.
Read at Poynter
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]