Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Conservative Talkshow Host Blasts Pam Bondi Over ‘Free Speech’ Claim: ‘Our Attorney General Is Apparently a Moron’
MEDIAITE ^ | September 15, 2025 | Charlie Nash

Posted on 09/16/2025 5:31:46 AM PDT by hcmama

Conservative talkshow host Erick Erickson tore into “moron” Attorney General Pam Bondi on Monday after she claimed “hate speech” did not count as “free speech” and would be targeted by her office.

During an interview with former White House official Katie Miller, Bondi said, “There’s free speech and then there’s hate speech, and there is no place, especially now, especially after what happened to Charlie, in our society.”

She warned, “We will absolutely target you, go after you if you are targeting anyone with hate speech, anything, and that’s across the aisle.”

(Excerpt) Read more at mediaite.com ...


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 00000001desantis2028; 001desantis2028; 123oclock4oclockzot; americahaters; anotherstupidpost; bondi; bondibashing; bonditrolls; bondiwhiners; bondiwhining; charlienash; clickbait; desantis2028; desimps; dnctrollsonfr; dumbingdownfr; dungsong; encouragingviolence; erickerickson; ericthemoron; fakenews; firedbyrush; firstamendment; freeptardation; freeptards; garbagepost; habitualcomplainers; hatesmaga; hatespeech; hcmama; leftistsource; mediaite; mediocreite; multiplenicks; nevertrumper; nevertrumpers; nttrolls; pambondi; perpetualcarping; pseudoconservative; randpaulsucks; republicanhaters; rinotards; rinowhino; sheep; sheepdogs; shesaidviolence; spain; spanishtroll; tds; tdstrolling; teamdesantis; terrorism; terroristleft; trollfarm; trollrepublic; trumphaters; uhavetds; uvoted4this; violence; weightwatchers; wolves
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-108 next last
Pam Bondi is indeed a moron.

There is categorically no First Amendment exception for "hate speech" in the US Constitution. There is, in fact, no such legal entity as "hate speech." This theory has been totally rejected by SCOTUS, and for her to suggest the government would "come after" those engaging in inflammatory speech is an affront to liberty.

The very idea is the cornerestone of leftist-liberal authoritarianism. To see this resurrected on the right is stomach-churning. Even squishes like Erickson see how dangerous it is. It's also an affront to everything Charlie Kirk stood for.

1 posted on 09/16/2025 5:31:46 AM PDT by hcmama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: hcmama

Don’t want to open the door to all this as Dems will use it against us.

Fortunately, though Obama lamented it, we have those ‘negative liberties’ per the Constitution and Bill of Rights to protect us. For now...


2 posted on 09/16/2025 5:38:01 AM PDT by TigerClaws
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hcmama

What needed to be said was there is no protection for speech that actively encourages violence or the active suppression of the exercise of said free speech.

A lawyer should know how to phrase these things, good grief.


3 posted on 09/16/2025 5:38:12 AM PDT by Skwor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hcmama

Radical Left Mediate quotes Rhino Supreme Erik E the jack a$$
as a conservative.

Lol , spare me that lefty BS from that Dem website .


4 posted on 09/16/2025 5:38:54 AM PDT by ncalburt ( Gop DC Globalists are the evil. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hcmama

Free speech = screw your feelings. Categorizing hate speech leaves the door open to individual interpretation. That’s not what the 1st amendment says. Trump has GOT to be disappointed in Bondis statement


5 posted on 09/16/2025 5:39:25 AM PDT by albie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hcmama
Attorney General Pamela Bondi @AGPamBondi ·

Hate speech that crosses the line into threats of violence is NOT protected by the First Amendment. It’s a crime. For far too long, we’ve watched the radical left normalize threats, call for assassinations, and cheer on political violence. That era is over.

Under 18 U.S.C. § 875(c), it is a federal crime to transmit “any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another.” Likewise, 18 U.S.C. § 876 and 18 U.S.C. § 115 make it a felony to threaten public officials, members of Congress, or their families.

You cannot call for someone’s murder. You cannot swat a Member of Congress. You cannot dox a conservative family and think it will be brushed off as “free speech.” These acts are punishable crimes, and every single threat will be met with the full force of the law.

Free speech protects ideas, debate, even dissent but it does NOT and will NEVER protect violence.

It is clear this violent rhetoric is designed to silence others from voicing conservative ideals.

We will never be silenced. Not for our families, not for our freedoms, and never for Charlie. His legacy will not be erased by fear or intimidation.

6 posted on 09/16/2025 5:40:22 AM PDT by tlozo (“We get a lot of bullshit thrown at us by Putin, if you want to know the truth,” Trump)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hcmama

Bondi doesn’t seem very bright...


7 posted on 09/16/2025 5:40:41 AM PDT by Sunsong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hcmama

I dont believe a Vowel from radical lefty Mediate or nutter Erik E .
Erik E is a has been Rhino .


8 posted on 09/16/2025 5:41:54 AM PDT by ncalburt ( Gop DC Globalists are the evil. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hcmama

I don’t think hate speech is the right answer. So I agree it’s a slippery slope at the left. We use against us as well, and it doesn’t align with the first amendment anyway. But I think what we could do to help curb, radical leftist, inciting violence And radicalism by calling people, Nazis and fascist, etc. etc. is take the defamation route.

And through the courts, when you have the joy reads of the world, and whoever else that are openly calling people these things “ without evidence” to “CNN, we go after them in court for defamation


9 posted on 09/16/2025 5:42:10 AM PDT by suasponte137
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hcmama

Bondi needs to take back, or “clarify” as we say, her meaning and intent to prosecute hate speech. If not, this would serve to set a new precedent that would be followed by a future DOJ, something we have fought long and hard to eliminate. The fact that the term “hate speech” is used so dis-proportionately against conservatives, like Charlie Kirk, should giver her all the reason to rethink her statement.


10 posted on 09/16/2025 5:43:56 AM PDT by omni-scientist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Skwor
What needed to be said was there is no protection for speech that actively encourages violence or the active suppression of the exercise of said free speech.

Of course, threats of violence are not protected under the First Amendment, nor is incitement.

But even in the case of incitement, SCOTUS has established a very high standard of proof from the state that the speech was intended to provoke "imminent lawless action."

An Attorney General of the United States should be cautious about how they discuss these matters. We don't want to go down this road of putting asterisks beside the First Amendment.

11 posted on 09/16/2025 5:44:59 AM PDT by hcmama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Sunsong
She is either too dumb or too ambitious for the position she holds.

Or both

12 posted on 09/16/2025 5:45:48 AM PDT by hcmama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: hcmama

Violent speech is not protected.


13 posted on 09/16/2025 5:45:50 AM PDT by ScottHammett
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hcmama

Eric Erickson is not a Conservative. Depends if they are planning attacks on ICE.


14 posted on 09/16/2025 5:47:53 AM PDT by bray (It's not racist to be racist against races the DNC hates.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tlozo
"The First Amendment does NOT protect hate speech that crosses the line into threats of violence."

Threats of violence have never been protected under the First Amendment. They have always been felonies under state and federal law.

That was all she needed to say. Leave the steaming "hate speech" load to the left.

15 posted on 09/16/2025 5:49:05 AM PDT by hcmama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: hcmama

Even Stephen Miller can’t talk this airhead Blondi out of a pickle.


16 posted on 09/16/2025 5:50:31 AM PDT by quantim (Victory is not relative, it is absolute.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ScottHammett
Define "violent speech."

Communicating a threat of violence has never been protected under the First Amendment.

But what do you consider "violent speech" that should not receive First Amendment protection?

17 posted on 09/16/2025 5:51:09 AM PDT by hcmama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: quantim

BlondiBondi strikes again. Incompetent.

She is reportedly wanting Patel fired.

How long can Wiles protect her?


18 posted on 09/16/2025 5:54:36 AM PDT by RummyChick (If I did not provide a link in my post none will be forthcoming )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Skwor

Exactly this.


19 posted on 09/16/2025 5:54:55 AM PDT by ArcadeQuarters (You can't remove RINOs by voting for them!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: hcmama

It’s obvious that the AG was inarticulately trying to draw a distinction between hate speech being hurled about today in the private setting versus government protected First Amendment hate speech. There is a difference and those who have been and are being fired now in the private sector seem to now be learning this lesson the hard way. We as a society need to self-police vile unorthodox cussing swearing speech in every day discourse or we will all turn into nihilistic lunatics.


20 posted on 09/16/2025 5:56:08 AM PDT by iontheball
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-108 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson