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!