Posted on 09/16/2025 5:31:46 AM PDT by hcmama
No, she doesn’t.
This is the Attorney General of the United States using the jargon of the Left.
Somebody please, tell me the Genus and species of moron she’s addressing, ‘cause she ain’t talkin’ to us!
As you say, we have toooooo much talk and not enough action.
So:
“I would like to kill you”
“I would like to kill you, you paddy bogtrotter”
“I would like to kill you, filthy Jew”
Are those all crimes? Are none of them crimes? Are some of them crimes, and if so, which one(s)?
Inquiring minds want to know.
George Zimmerman would agree.
Counterman v. Colorado
"To establish that a statement is a “true threat” unprotected by the First Amendment, the government must prove that the defendant had some subjective understanding of the statements’ threatening nature, based on a showing no more demanding than recklessness. Justice Elena Kagan authored the majority opinion of the Court.
While the First Amendment protects freedom of speech, it allows for restrictions of so-called “true threats.” A true threat is determined by the recipient’s perception, not the speaker’s intent. However, to prevent chilling protected speech, there must be a subjective mental-state requirement. This means that the speaker’s understanding of the threat is crucial. A recklessness standard—where a person consciously disregards a significant risk that their words might harm another—is the appropriate measure for true threats because it strikes a balance between safeguarding free speech and addressing genuine threats. In Counterman’s case, the government used only an objective standard, without considering Counterman’s understanding of his statements as threatening, in violation of the requirements of the First Amendment."
Charlie Kirk reportedly said at a meeting of influencers that if he said “Bibi should resign” he would be unfairly attacked. Reportedly, Seth Dillon is alleged to have said that most people would view that as anti semitic.
Whether or not either of these statements were really said the truth is that is exactly what would happen...
e see that play out over and over again on this site.
and therein lies the problem with “hate speech”
"Hate speech that crosses the line into threats of violence is NOT protected by the First Amendment. It's a crime," Bondi said in a Tuesday morning post on X."For far too long, we've watched the radical left normalize threats, call for assassinations, and cheer on political violence. That era is over."
Bondi pointed to the U.S. Constitution—specifically 18 U.S.C. § 875(c), 18 U.S.C. § 876, and 18 U.S.C. § 115—saying it directly outlaws threats of violence.
"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,'" Bondi said.
Incitement to violence is different from speech approving of violence.
“I am happy Charlie Kirk was murdered”, while hateful, evil and possibly will get you fired by a private employer, should be protected speech, in my opinion. Should someone murder Barack Obama, for example, someone might say that, and it ought to be legal, if repugnant.
“I want someone to go murder Charlie Kirk”, is inciting someone to proactively go do an illegal act. That’s incitement, and worth prosecuting, in my opinion.
Keeping in mind that as soon as leftists are back in charge, they will quadruple down on any precedents Blondie lays down now.
And rightfully so
“If you believe people
deserve to be shot
for their opinions,
don’t cry when you
get fired for yours.”
It’s not free speech to support and celebrate domestic terrorism and political murder. You are an active participant in domestic terrorism if you are promoting it and spreading its message.
That being said, “hate speech” that is not criminal should not be treated as a crime. We’ll have to see where this all goes but attacking Trump and his cabinet at this time screams RINO!!! to me.
I have no problem with using the weapons of the left if it is applied to rooting out Antifa, Soro’s and BLM. Once they are destroyed “than” we can have an argument about it’s relation to free speech...
When in a war: fight fire with fire.
Put this at the top.
“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”
Define "promoting it and spreading it."
Erick Ericsson’s picture is next to the word moron in the dictionary. 😆
Check
But the GOP would not confirm Matt Gaetz. It is highly probable that the GOP will not confirm anyone with the brains and the huevos to do what has to be done.
The GOP tried to stop Tulsi Gabbard, for heaven's sake, but their trial balloon collapsed.
An AG with the level of brains and commitment to roll up the "combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings or by the powers vested in the marshals by law" is not confirmable by today's Senate.
There is no such thing as “HATE SPEECH”
only free speech.
Where do you draw that line?
WHO draws that line 2
I don’t hate Bondi OR Democrats.
Saying that Bondi is not the AG for the times we are living in isn’t “hating” Bondi.
And saying that it is validates the whole concept of “hate speech”, which absolutely is protected by the First Amendment.
There is no hatred toward Bondi. People just do not think she is up to the task we need to fight the leftists. She fumbles quite a bit. Trump needed a very strong and confident AG.
I don’t hate her and I doubt many FReepers hate her.
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.