| 
 The horrific
                                and sadistic assassination of Turning Point USA
                                founder Charlie Kirk has unleashed all sorts of
                                cascading emotions and has apparently resulted
                                in Attorney General Pam Bondi mentally having a
                                major, manic mental meltdown. Earlier this week,
                                September 15, she appeared on the - Katie Miller Podcast -
                                declaring Attorney General Pam Bondi, America’s
                                highest-ranking law-enforcement official, stated
                                in - an
                                      interview posted to YouTube earlier this
                                      week - that
                                federal law enforcement will “go after”
                                Americans for hate speech. “There’s free speech,
                                and then there’s hate speech,” she said. In
                                fact, - there
                                      is no hate-speech exception - to
                                the First Amendment. Visibly and
                                publicly outraged and disturbed to certain
                                reactions to public and “vulgar” (her term)
                                expressions of contempt for Kirk’s legacy from
                                varied people and media journalists, pundits,
                                commentators etc.… she stated she would enact
                                acts of revenge: “We will absolutely target you,
                                go after you, if you are targeting anyone with
                                hate speech. There’s free speech and then
                                there’s hate speech. in an
                                      interview posted to YouTube, she said federal law
                                enforcement will “go after” Americans for hate
                                speech. “There’s free speech, and then there’s
                                hate speech, and there is no place, especially
                                now, especially after what happened to Charlie.”
                                she said. In fact, there
                                      is no hate-speech exception to the First
                                Amendment  Mind you, this
                                is the not some random, disgruntled, plain Jane
                                or average Joe spewing such alarming rhetoric.
                                These are the exact words coming directly from
                                the mouth of the Attorney General of the United
                                States of America! The highest-ranking law
                                enforcement official in the nation! Not
                                surprisingly, after a torrent of criticism
                                raining down from across the political spectrum,
                                the current attorney general gave her remarks,
                                arguing that she only stated that “hate speech”
                                accompanied by “calls to violence” would be
                                prosecuted. It is an attempt at rhetorical
                                clean-up that inspires little confidence. Bondi’s words
                                are constitutionally illogical and counterfeit. She promised to
                                target certain individuals for hate speech, a
                                term that is resoundingly subjective and
                                potentially ambiguous by its very nature. “There
                                is no unprotected category of speech in the
                                constitution or in the case law called ‘hate
                                speech’,” said Heidi Kitrosser, a Northwestern
                                University law professor. “By being so vague and
                                by talking about speech that doesn’t fit into
                                any legal category, she is basically opening the
                                door for taking action against anyone who
                                engages in speech that the president or the
                                Department of Justice or Stephen Miller doesn’t
                                like.” Similar outrage was directed toward Bondi
                                from right wing supporters normally aligned with
                                the Trump administration who have staunchly
                                condemned Bondi’s comments and avidly demand her
                                dismissal. Conservative
                                      pundit Matt Walsh, who said
                                after Kirk’s death: “We are up against demonic
                                forces from the pit of Hell,” - posted
                                      on Twitter/X - of
                                Bondi: “Get rid of her. Today. This is insane.
                                Conservatives have fought for decades for the
                                right to refuse service to anyone. We won that
                                fight. Now Pam Bondi wants to roll it all back
                                for no reason. Erick Erickson, a conservative
                                commentator, also - wrote
                                      on X: “Our
                                  attorney general is apparently a moron.
                                  ‘There’s free speech and then there is hate
                                  speech.’ No ma’am. That is not the law.” Brit
                                  Hume, the longtime Fox
                                  News host, wrote
                                      on social media, “Someone
                                needs to explain to Ms. Bondi that so-called
                                ‘hate speech,’ repulsive though it may be, is
                                protected by the First Amendment. She should
                                know this.” And Savanah Hernandez, a commentator
                                with Turning Point, described
                                      those words from
                                Bondi as the “most destructive phrase that has
                                ever been uttered,” and “she needs to be removed
                                as attorney general now.” A number of
                                her critics pointed to a May
                                      2024 social media post
                                by Mr. Kirk himself, laying out clearly that
                                while “ugly speech,” “gross speech” and “evil
                                speech” existed, there was no such thing as hate
                                speech under the Constitution. You know when you
                                get the dyed in the wool democrats and
                                rock-ribbed republicans on the same page, you
                                might want to look at what has been said or has
                                transpired. The Bondi
                                saga is odd due to the political reality that
                                Republicans in the Trump era have usually
                                discarded the sort of foolishness that the
                                attorney general had to rabidly rectify. During
                                last year’s presidential campaign, it was
                                Democratic vice-presidential nominee Tim Walz
                                who was justifiably
                                      attacked after
                                proclaiming, “There’s no guarantee to free
                                speech on misinformation or hate speech, and
                                especially around our democracy.” That being
                                said, it is currently political pockets of the
                                conservative right who are demanding aggressive
                                government crackdowns following Charlie Kirk’s
                                assassination. Perhaps they should remind
                                themselves to reflect upon Kirk’s own comments.
                                “Hate speech does not exist legally in America,”
                                he wrote
                                      in 2024. “There’s
                                ugly speech. There’s gross speech. There’s evil
                                speech. And ALL of it is protected by the First
                                Amendment.” Sagacious words indeed! No reasonable person is going to
                                deny that many, if not most of us, have
                                political, social, cultural, religious, sexual
                                preferences and biases. The indisputable reality
                                is that it is difficult to have to listen to
                                rhetoric from others who, in some cases,
                                dehumanize your very right to exist as a human
                                being. Moreover, when you are in your late teens
                                and early adulthood, (although it appears to be
                                the case for many middle-aged and older people
                                as well) your emotions are often tender,
                                reactionary and fertile. You are often inclined
                                to react in an irrational manner if you feel
                                that you are being disrespected and discounted
                                or your sensibilities are being confronted or
                                challenged. Personal feelings aside, the answer
                                is not to prohibit others with whom you disagree
                                the right to express their viewpoints. Indeed,
                                the more appropriate and effective response to
                                challenge such viewpoints is with concrete facts
                                and logic that can/will effectively dispel such
                                morally indefensible speech. Free speech is a crucial and
                                vital ingredient to our democracy. Either you
                                have it, or you don’t. It is important to
                                remember that when you attempt to curtail the
                                free speech of others, it may very well only be
                                a matter of time before your voice can be
                                stifled or outright silenced. Denying others the
                                right to voice their opinions is a misguided and
                                dangerous activity that can result in dramatic
                                and disastrous consequences for all. To repeat
                                the old saying, “sunlight is the best
                                disinfectant.” Such dictatorial behavior,
                                irrespective of what political direction such
                                tyranny is coming from, cannot be condoned nor
                                tolerated in a democracy. Period! | 
 |