Pam Bondi’s Ridiculous 24 Hours

[NWRatCon]

I was going to lay this out in a post, but this article does as succinct a job as I could conjure.

Pam Bondi’s Ridiculous 24 Hours (NatReview)​

Pam Bondi’s Ridiculous 24 Hours | National Review

There is no such thing as hate speech, and businesses are absolutely allowed to retain mean employees if they so wish.

www.nationalreview.com

It has not been a good 24 hours for Pam Bondi, the attorney general of the United States. Yesterday, on the Katie Miller Podcast, Bondi said:

We will absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech.

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.

Bondi continued:

There’s free speech and then there’s hate speech. And there’s no place, especially now, especially after what happened to Charlie.

No, no, no. This distinction is false, incorrect, imaginary. It does not exist. It is a fiction. Under every relevant Supreme Court precedent, speech is speech is speech. There are other categories of speech: libel, incitement, threats, and so on. But speech that is supposedly “hateful” — including about Charlie Kirk’s murder — is undoubtedly protected by the Constitution. Kirk himself was clear about this.

Separately, on Fox News last night, Bondi told Sean Hannity:

And employers, you, have to have an obligation to get rid of people. You need to look at people who are saying horrible things. And they shouldn’t be working with you. Businesses cannot discriminate. If you wanna go in and print posters with Charlie’s pictures on them for a vigil, you have to let them do that. We can prosecute you for that.

Again: no, no, no. No such “obligation” exists.
_____
And this person is supposed to be our top lawyer? She's completely incompetent.

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

Obviously a Crooked donnie trump DEI hire.

Dumber than hell and bleeding out of her wherever. smh

God lord we're screwed. Half the country is cheering this.

 

[BitterPill]

I was going to lay this out in a post, but this article does as succinct a job as I could conjure.

Pam Bondi’s Ridiculous 24 Hours (NatReview)​

Pam Bondi’s Ridiculous 24 Hours | National Review

There is no such thing as hate speech, and businesses are absolutely allowed to retain mean employees if they so wish.

www.nationalreview.com

It has not been a good 24 hours for Pam Bondi, the attorney general of the United States. Yesterday, on the Katie Miller Podcast, Bondi said:


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.

Bondi continued:


No, no, no. This distinction is false, incorrect, imaginary. It does not exist. It is a fiction. Under every relevant Supreme Court precedent, speech is speech is speech. There are other categories of speech: libel, incitement, threats, and so on. But speech that is supposedly “hateful” — including about Charlie Kirk’s murder — is undoubtedly protected by the Constitution. Kirk himself was clear about this.

Separately, on Fox News last night, Bondi told Sean Hannity:


Again: no, no, no. No such “obligation” exists.
_____
And this person is supposed to be our top lawyer? She's completely incompetent.

Just wait until it goes to the Supreme Court.

Pam will be proven correct, and there may even be a warrant for your arrest forthcoming, God willing.

MAGA.

 

[Loulit01]

Just wait until it goes to the Supreme Court.

Pam will be proven correct, and there may even be a warrant for your arrest forthcoming, God willing.

MAGA.

God willing and weather permitting.

 

[PoliSciPulse]

@NWRatCon -- can you distinguish for us the difference between a hate crime and hate speech, and speech used in a hate crime?

 

[Along Came Jones]

This isn't the same Pam Bondi who appeared at her confirmation hearing, is it?

The Department of Justice must also return to defending the foundational rights of all Americans, including free speech, free exercise of religion, and the right to bear arms. That is what the American people expect and deserve from the Department. If confirmed, I will do what it takes to make America safe again. Bondi Opening Statement

 

[Loulit01]

This isn't the same Pam Bondi who appeared at her confirmation hearing, is it?

The Department of Justice must also return to defending the foundational rights of all Americans, including free speech, free exercise of religion, and the right to bear arms. That is what the American people expect and deserve from the Department. If confirmed, I will do what it takes to make America safe again. Bondi Opening Statement

Didn't show also say she'd follow precedent and established case law?

Oh, wait....

 

[Along Came Jones]

Didn't show also say she'd follow precedent and established case law?

Oh, wait....

During subsequent inquiry from the committee, she certainly did. She also vigorously defended and expressed confidence in Kash Patel's appointment as FBI director.

 

[Loulit01]

During subsequent inquiry from the committee, she certainly did. She also vigorously defended and expressed confidence in Kash Patel's appointment as FBI director.

So did a few Justices I know.

 

[Along Came Jones]

So did a few Justices I know.

"Precedence" and "established law" are pretty much boiler plate statements. Can't imagine anyone answering differently. I guess the nominees are asked just to put them on the record.

 

[Loulit01]

"Precedence" and "established law" are pretty much boiler plate statements. Can't imagine anyone answering differently. I guess the nominees are asked just to put them on the record.

For all the good that did.

 

[Maccabee]

Just wait until it goes to the Supreme Court.

Pam will be proven correct, and there may even be a warrant for your arrest forthcoming, God willing.

MAGA.

So would it be ok if Democrats saw it fit to declare disparaging remarks against trans people as Hate Speech?

 

[Loulit01]

So would it be ok if Democrats saw it fit to declare disparaging remarks against trans people as Hate Speech?

No. Trans people are a tiny minority with very little political power, so they're fair game.

 

[NWRatCon]

@NWRatCon -- can you distinguish for us the difference between a hate crime and hate speech, and speech used in a hate crime?

Yes, I can. Essentially, a "hate crime" is any of a number of standard criminal actions (murder, assault, harassment, arson, property destruction, etc.) which is motivated by animosity toward a particular identifiable group - usually a minority, e.g., on a racial, religious, gender or ethnic basis. State and federal laws vary on what crimes are included.

18 U.S. Code § 249 - Hate crime acts

www.law.cornell.edu

Speech alone (or speech analogs) is not prosecutable. For example, using derogatory terms, carrying a sign or burning a flag.

But those actions taken in conjunction with another criminal act may be evidence of motivation. Thus, carrying a confederate or Nazi flag is not, alone, a criminal act, but a swastika painted on a synagogue door is a hate crime (property destruction + religious animus).

Bondi and other regime members are taking advantage of a vagary in the law, as "hate speech" is an ill-defined term, standing alone. Disparaging minorities, for example, may be offensive, but not prosecutable, unless it is used, for example, to rile up a mob to, say, attack the Capitol to prevent an election certification.

“Addressing hate speech does not mean limiting or prohibiting freedom of speech. It means keeping hate speech from escalating into something more dangerous, particularly incitement to discrimination, hostility and violence, which is prohibited under international law.”

— United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres, May 2019

Hate speech versus freedom of speech | United Nations

www.un.org

The irony, of course, is that the regime, and its minions and supporters, use hate speech constantly, but it is only when they couple that with action, like using force against specific ethnic minorities, that it becomes criminal. "Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person—"

 

[Callen]

What a Hoot when I think of all the Trumpers here who have ragged on about out hate speech laws in Canada!!! It's bizarre when you think that the DOJ are going to go after anyone who uses the type of language Kirk promoted.

 

[Gatsby]

Is it too much to ask that the Attorney General of the United States understand basic constitutional concepts like freedom of speech. There is a VERY high bar for the government limiting speech, and "people insulting Charlie Kirk" doesn't come close. Even the people openly celebrating his assassination, as evil as they are, are still within the bounds of constitutionally protected freedom of speech. Free speech is not even arguably restricted until you get to people who are inciting more imminent political violence.

Fire them all. Pam Bondi, Kash Patel, Dan Bongino. The entire Justice Department has dropped the ball on this, from start to finish.

 

[Callen]

Trump will not fire any loyalists no matter how incompetent they are at their jobs. He did not place them in their positions based on competency. They are performing exactly as he intended.

 

[noonereal]

I was going to lay this out in a post, but this article does as succinct a job as I could conjure.

Pam Bondi’s Ridiculous 24 Hours (NatReview)​

Pam Bondi’s Ridiculous 24 Hours | National Review

There is no such thing as hate speech, and businesses are absolutely allowed to retain mean employees if they so wish.

www.nationalreview.com

It has not been a good 24 hours for Pam Bondi, the attorney general of the United States. Yesterday, on the Katie Miller Podcast, Bondi said:


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.

Bondi continued:


No, no, no. This distinction is false, incorrect, imaginary. It does not exist. It is a fiction. Under every relevant Supreme Court precedent, speech is speech is speech. There are other categories of speech: libel, incitement, threats, and so on. But speech that is supposedly “hateful” — including about Charlie Kirk’s murder — is undoubtedly protected by the Constitution. Kirk himself was clear about this.

Separately, on Fox News last night, Bondi told Sean Hannity:


Again: no, no, no. No such “obligation” exists.
_____
And this person is supposed to be our top lawyer? She's completely incompetent.

You don't seem to get it
You are posting as if we are still living in a pre Trump world. We don't

 

[Decypher]

Looks like freedom of speech can be added to the long list of things Republicans no longer hold dear.

 

[Peacenik]

I was going to lay this out in a post, but this article does as succinct a job as I could conjure.

Pam Bondi’s Ridiculous 24 Hours (NatReview)​

Pam Bondi’s Ridiculous 24 Hours | National Review

There is no such thing as hate speech, and businesses are absolutely allowed to retain mean employees if they so wish.

www.nationalreview.com

It has not been a good 24 hours for Pam Bondi, the attorney general of the United States. Yesterday, on the Katie Miller Podcast, Bondi said:


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.

Bondi continued:


No, no, no. This distinction is false, incorrect, imaginary. It does not exist. It is a fiction. Under every relevant Supreme Court precedent, speech is speech is speech. There are other categories of speech: libel, incitement, threats, and so on. But speech that is supposedly “hateful” — including about Charlie Kirk’s murder — is undoubtedly protected by the Constitution. Kirk himself was clear about this.

Separately, on Fox News last night, Bondi told Sean Hannity:


Again: no, no, no. No such “obligation” exists.
_____
And this person is supposed to be our top lawyer? She's completely incompetent.

"Businesses cannot discriminate." But that is precisely what she is advocating that they do.

What an idiot.

 

[Maccabee]

No. Trans people are a tiny minority with very little political power, so they're fair game.

Im assuming you meant that as satire, correct

 

[ColdHardTruth]

I was going to lay this out in a post, but this article does as succinct a job as I could conjure.

Pam Bondi’s Ridiculous 24 Hours (NatReview)​

Pam Bondi’s Ridiculous 24 Hours | National Review

There is no such thing as hate speech, and businesses are absolutely allowed to retain mean employees if they so wish.

www.nationalreview.com

It has not been a good 24 hours for Pam Bondi, the attorney general of the United States. Yesterday, on the Katie Miller Podcast, Bondi said:


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.

Bondi continued:


No, no, no. This distinction is false, incorrect, imaginary. It does not exist. It is a fiction. Under every relevant Supreme Court precedent, speech is speech is speech. There are other categories of speech: libel, incitement, threats, and so on. But speech that is supposedly “hateful” — including about Charlie Kirk’s murder — is undoubtedly protected by the Constitution. Kirk himself was clear about this.

Separately, on Fox News last night, Bondi told Sean Hannity:


Again: no, no, no. No such “obligation” exists.
_____
And this person is supposed to be our top lawyer? She's completely incompetent.

He's a confederate traitor and brainless imbecile from Flor-I-Duh.

What did you expect?

 

[Airyaman]

Dayum.

 

[ScrambledEggs]

Trump needs to remind her there are good people on both sides

 

[NWRatCon]

He's a confederate traitor and brainless imbecile from Flor-I-Duh.

What did you expect?

Florida, sadly, is a breeding ground for idiots and traitors. There is a particularly virulent outbreak centered in Palm Beach, and another in Tallahassee. I visit frequently, and lived there as a military assignment. "Florida man" is a public representative of this aspect of Florida culture. Unfortunately, the infection is overwhelming and has reached the highest level of leadership. There are millions of honorable, sensible and patriotic citizens and denizens. They are being abused by the idiots in charge who are dangerous, unpatriotic, criminals. I use that last word advisedly. Not just criminally negligent, but actively and consciously engaged in criminal activities. That includes the former and sometime resident of Mar-a-Lago, and at least two of his former Florida-resident cabinet members at State and Justice.