AG Bondi’s crusade against HATE SPEECH following Charlie Kirk murder tests conservative principles – NaturalNews.com

• Following Charlie Kirk’s assassination, Attorney General Pam Bondi declared a crackdown on “hate speech,” causing backlash across the political spectrum and exposing divisions within conservative circles over free speech vs. government intervention.
• Bondi incorrectly claimed “hate speech” is legally actionable, despite U.S. law only prosecuting speech in narrow categories like incitement, true threats or defamation—not subjective “hate speech.”
• Figures like Erick Erickson and Matt Walsh condemned Bondi’s stance, emphasizing that while social backlash against offensive speech is valid, government punishment violates constitutional principles.
• After backlash, Bondi attempted to reframe her position, stating only speech threatening violence is unprotected—but the damage was done, eroding trust among free speech advocates.
• The incident reflects a recurring pattern where crises (9/11, COVID, J6) trigger calls for expanded government censorship powers—undermining the very principles Kirk and his movement fought to defend.

In the raw and volatile days following the assassination of conservative commentator Charlie Kirk, the nation’s top law enforcement official has ignited a political firestorm by declaring a new war on “hate speech” –  a move that has deeply divided her natural allies and raised profound questions about the future of free speech in America.

Attorney General (AG) Pam Bondi, facing intense backlash from across the political spectrum, has been forced to recalibrate her stance, but not before exposing a significant rift within the conservative movement over how to respond to political violence without sacrificing foundational constitutional principles. The controversy erupted during an emotional national moment, just days after Kirk was killed.

Bondi drew a stark legal distinction that does not exist in American jurisprudence. “There’s free speech and then there’s hate speech,” she asserted, vowing that the Department of Justice would “absolutely target” and “go after” those engaging in it. This declaration, seemingly conflating protected speech with criminal activity, sent shockwaves through legal and political circles.

This constitutional misstep was called out forcefully by figures within her own political camp. Conservative radio host Erick Erickson bluntly labeled the AG a “moron” for her misunderstanding of the law. Commentator Matt Walsh, while agreeing that social backlash against those celebrating the assassination was appropriate, insisted that “there obviously shouldn’t be any legal repercussions for ‘hate speech,’ which is not even a valid or coherent concept.”

From a legal standpoint, her comments were incorrect. The First Amendment offers broad protection for speech, and the term “hate speech” holds no specific legal definition in U.S. law.

Speech can only be prosecuted if it falls into narrow, well-defined categories such as incitement to imminent lawless action, true threats or defamation. By creating a new, vague category of unprotected speech, Bondi appeared to be advocating for a power that the government does not possess.

War on “hate speech” betrays Kirk’s legacy

Facing a torrent of criticism, Bondi attempted to clarify her position on the social media platform X. She reframed her threat, stating: “Hate speech that crosses the line into threats of violence is NOT protected by the First Amendment. It’s a crime.”

Despite her backpedaling, the damage to her credibility among free speech advocates was already done. The instinct to empower the state to police offensive ideas, even in the name of civility and safety, represents a significant ideological departure for a movement that has positioned itself as the defender of the First Amendment.

This incident is not an isolated one but fits a recurring pattern in American politics. Throughout the 21st century, moments of national crisis – from the 9/11 attacks to the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic and the Jan. 6, 2021 false-flag Capitol riot – have frequently been met with calls for new government powers and restrictions on civil liberties. The tools of censorship, once established, are rarely dismantled; they are simply redirected at new targets when political power changes hands.

Kirk’s assassination in September has become the latest catalyst for this cycle, creating a moment where these competing impulses are clashing violently within the same political coalition. The irony of the situation is that his own political legacy was built upon the very principle now being challenged by his allies.

Kirk was a staunch advocate for free speech, particularly on college campuses, and he often correctly stated that “hate speech does not legally exist in America.” The movement he helped lead, Turning Point USA, fought for the right of conservatives to express their views without fear of institutional punishment. The push to use the state’s legal apparatus to punish offensive speech in his name stands in direct contradiction to the ideals he promoted.

“A war on ‘hate speech’ is presented as a coordinated campaign that uses the subjective concept of ‘hate’ to justify silencing opposing viewpoints,” said BrightU.AI‘s Enoch. “It is characterized as a strategic effort to dismantle the foundational principle of free speech by labeling dissenting or offensive ideas as dangerous. Ultimately, this campaign is framed not as a protection of marginalized groups, but as a political tool to suppress dissent and control public discourse.”

The turmoil following Kirk’s death has thrust the nation into a critical examination of its values. The emotional and political desire for retribution and a more civil discourse is powerful and understandable. However, the response from figures like Bondi demonstrates how quickly foundational rights can be compromised in the name of security and solidarity.

Watch Jefferey Jaxen and Del Bigtree discussing whether AG Pam Bondi is targeting free speech below.

This video is from The HighWire with Del Bigtree channel on Brighteon.com.

Sources include: 

ArmageddonProse.Substack.com

POLITICO.com

BrightU.ai

NBCNews.com

Brighteon.com