The words of an Attorney General carry the full weight of the federal government. They can be used to affirm the nation’s commitment to the rule of law, or they can be used to threaten it. In a series of alarming statements, Attorney General Pam Bondi has chosen the latter, signaling a willingness to weaponize the Department of Justice in a manner that is not only hypocritical but fundamentally ignorant of the Constitution she is sworn to uphold.
What is ‘Hate Speech,’ and Can the Government Ban It?
The first misstep was a legally baseless threat to “absolutely target” and “go after” anyone engaging in “hate speech.” This comment, made on a conservative podcast, reveals a profound misunderstanding of the First Amendment.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly and unequivocally affirmed that there is no general “hate speech” exception to free speech protections.
The bar for punishing speech is extraordinarily high, reserved for narrow categories like direct incitement to imminent lawless action. For the nation’s chief law enforcement officer to be unaware of this bedrock principle – or to willfully ignore it – is a startling dereliction of duty.
Has the Justice Department Forgotten the Masterpiece Cakeshop Case?
Hours later, the Attorney General compounded her error. Citing the case of an Office Depot employee who refused to print flyers for a Charlie Kirk memorial, Bondi issued a direct threat on national television.
“Businesses cannot discriminate… We can prosecute you for that.”
This statement is a stunning reversal of years of conservative legal advocacy. It was conservative legal minds who argued, successfully, that a baker in Colorado had a First Amendment right to refuse to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding.
More recently, in 303 Creative v. Elenis, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority explicitly affirmed that businesses that create expressive content cannot be compelled by the government to produce messages that violate their conscience.
For the Attorney General to now argue the inverse – that an employee can be compelled to print a message they find objectionable – is an act of breathtaking hypocrisy. It suggests that constitutional principles are not principles at all, but rather partisan tools to be picked up or discarded as political convenience dictates.
Discussion
Are you an idiot? It’s an attack on the 1st Amendment by people we expect to protect it.
But isn't calling out hypocrisy the same tactic that Democrats are accused of all the time? How does that make one side more credible than the other?
I know what they are saying is morally wrong gleefully wanting someone dead. The first amendment stands for free speech that means what ever is on your mind you can say. If you go after this what is next. I do believe if you hold an office you should respect the office you are voted for to help your constituents not to incite violence.Without free speech I would not be able to write this opion.Just take a minute and think about it
What she said wasnt any big deal. I agree with her. There can be limits when it comes to inciting a riot, for instance. BUT YES, busines essentially should never descriminate!
Where was this outrage when the Obama and the Biden administration were banning speech?And holding people accountable for praying for being catholic or as a parent speaking out at meetings…. This is the epitome of hypocrisy.
Once again everything the right does is OK. The left be damned! So hypocritical!
The left has been doing this exact same thing during the Biden and Obama administration. Hurts when the roles are reversed doesn't it?
WRONG TYSEN
I believe in free speech to a point.but when it comes to hurting people then it's no longer free speech it becomes hate speech. I think Americans are dumber these days they have no common sense people have diarrhea of the mouth.do your research before you open your mouth have the facts first there is way to much hate in this country everyone is worried about themselves. We need to come together as a nation and people need to stop being so damn sensitive my goodness the people of America are bab
You can’t have it both ways. Are Republicans now advocating cancel culture and limiting free speech? It is indeed a slippery slope.
AG's hypocrisy here seems to forget the Constitution isn't just optional.
in both masterpiece cake shop(and the Colorado government's war against Jack Phillips and Christianity–for Colorado Hates Christianity) and the same with 303 Creative. it was the State Government's Hate for Christianity that maintained the legal suits. Government has claimed "hate speech" as their object. In both cases cited when the Court stepped in the Court did nothing at all to end the HATE of Colo. Govt/ diguised as anti discrimination remains.
It's not the people of Colorado, it's the state government. Colorado would be a red state if it weren't for Denver and Boulder, which are heavily populated with Democrats.
I held some of the same reservations some time back when the same focus was placed on Hate crimes, and still wonder who determined what constituted hate, couldnt it be disapproval, extreme disapproval or some marginal incremental difference between approval to disapproval… but just as now, in the time this was being debated a different motive was present but non the less it became written into our laws… stay tuned.
Leave a Comment
Leave a Comment
Does History Hold a Warning for This Moment?
This is not the first time the Department of Justice has been wielded as a political weapon. During the “Palmer Raids” of 1919 and 1920, Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer used the full force of the DOJ to conduct mass arrests and deportations of suspected political radicals, often with no regard for due process.
It stands today as a chilling historical lesson in how quickly the state’s power can be abused to crush dissent under the guise of national security.
Can the Civil Rights Division Prosecute an Office Depot Employee?
The Attorney General’s threat is not just hypocritical; it is legally hollow. Bondi specifically invoked the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division as the enforcement mechanism. However, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the primary statute this division enforces, prohibits discrimination in public accommodations based on race, color, religion, or national origin.
Political affiliation or agreement with a public figure such as Charlie Kirk is not a protected class under federal law. The threat to prosecute an Office-Depot employee under this statute is an empty one, designed not for legal effect, but for political intimidation.
It is a dangerous bluff that uses the specter of federal power to create a chilling effect on the speech of ordinary citizens. This is not the rule of law; it is the weaponization of it.
Pam Bondi's just showing Dems their own hypocrisy, finally someone with guts!