By Mike Smithgall | September 17, 2025 | Atheistville

When Leaders Misstate the Law

When the nation’s top law enforcement official makes a statement about free speech, you expect precision. This week, Attorney General Pam Bondi told a podcast audience that the Justice Department would “target hate speech.” She suggested there is free speech, and then there is hate speech. That may sound tough, but it is legally false.

The U.S. Constitution does not recognize a “hate speech” exception. Courts have been clear that speech, even when offensive or cruel, remains protected unless it falls into narrow categories such as incitement to imminent violence, true threats, targeted harassment, or defamation.

Bondi later tried to walk back her words, but the signal had already been sent. When the top law enforcement officer in the country suggests prosecuting people based on what they say, it undermines trust in the First Amendment. More importantly, it shows how fragile our commitment to free speech becomes when politics enter the equation.

Watch the full episode here

Listen to the podcast here

---

What Bondi Said vs. What the Law Says

Let’s start with the basics. In her remarks, Bondi implied that the government would pursue people not for threatening violence, but for expressing views labeled “hateful.” That’s viewpoint discrimination.

The Supreme Court has consistently ruled against such censorship. In R.A.V. v. St. Paul (1992), the Court struck down a hate-speech ordinance because it punished speech based on viewpoint. In Snyder v. Phelps (2011), the Court upheld the Westboro Baptist Church’s offensive protests at military funerals, reinforcing that the Constitution protects even deeply unpleasant expression.

The message from the courts has been clear: offensive words are still free speech. Bondi’s statement was not just political rhetoric. It was a direct contradiction of established law — the very law she is sworn to enforce.

---

Hypocrisy on Both Sides

Why does this matter? Because it reveals how selective people become when defending speech.

President Trump frequently insulted individuals, immigrants, and even entire countries. Charlie Kirk made a career out of inflammatory rhetoric. Critics called much of this “hate speech.” Conservatives were quick to defend it as free speech, and legally they were correct.

But after Kirk’s tragic assassination, we see a double standard. Now, when insults and anger turn against conservatives, Bondi says it is no longer free speech, it is criminal.

This is the problem. Both sides want to apply the First Amendment when it protects their allies and abandon it when it shields their critics. Progressives often push for hate speech bans to protect vulnerable groups. Conservatives demand absolute free speech until their figures become the target.

Free speech is not meant to be comfortable. It only has meaning when it protects the words we despise.

---

The American President’s Reminder

Sometimes pop culture captures the principle better than politicians. In The American President, there’s a powerful line:

“You want free speech? Let’s see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil.”

That line distills the core idea. Defending free speech means protecting the flag-burner as much as the flag-waver. It means tolerating the person who makes your skin crawl.

Bondi’s framing flips this on its head. She suggests speech is free when it supports her side but punishable when it offends her allies. That is not a principle. That is politics dressed up as law.

And once you normalize that standard, it will not stop with your enemies. Today it might silence critics of Charlie Kirk. Tomorrow it could silence critics of Christianity. Next week it could silence critics of government itself.

Watch the clip discussed in the episode here

---

Why “Hate Speech” Laws Don’t Work

Supporters of hate speech bans argue that words wound, stigmatize, and marginalize. Philosopher Jeremy Waldron has argued that hateful language undermines dignity and equality by branding some groups as inferior. These are serious concerns.

But the legal system does not exist to police feelings. It exists to police actions. That distinction is crucial.

Other democracies take a different approach. Canada and Germany criminalize some hate speech. The U.K. prosecutes racial vilification. The United States does not, and for good reason. Once the government defines “hate,” the scope expands quickly. Today it is racial slurs. Tomorrow it is religious criticism. Eventually it could be dissent against political leaders.

American courts have held firm: the remedy for bad speech is more speech. You counter it with arguments, exposure, ridicule, and better ideas. Silencing it through law not only risks martyring extremists, it also erodes the very foundation of free society.

Bondi’s comments signal a willingness to import a European model into the American system, under the pretext of tragedy. That is a dangerous precedent.

---

When Principles Are Tested

Free speech is easy to defend when the words are polite. It becomes difficult when the words are ugly. That is when leaders reveal whether they value principle or convenience.

Charlie Kirk himself was no consistent defender of free speech. He used the First Amendment when it shielded him, and dismissed critics as “haters.” Trump did the same. On the other side, progressives have often called for speech restrictions in universities, on social media, and beyond.

Bondi’s remarks show how fragile these principles become at the highest levels of government. By suggesting prosecution of “hate speech,” she revealed that even the Justice Department is willing to shift constitutional boundaries when politically useful.

That should concern everyone. The power to decide which speech is illegal will not stop with your opponent. Once it exists, it will inevitably be turned against you.

Consistency is the test. Defending free speech does not mean agreeing with every word. It means accepting that a free society requires tolerating speech we dislike.

---

The Real Threat: Government Control of Speech

The true danger here is not hateful words. It is a government eager to police them.

Attorney General Bondi was not alone. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said he would consider removing service members who criticized Charlie Kirk. Think about that. Kirk was not a government official. He was a political commentator. For the head of the military to threaten careers over criticism of a civilian pundit is not defending the Constitution. It is undermining it.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio went even further, suggesting visas should be revoked for immigrants who spoke critically of Kirk. That is not equal protection. That is selective punishment.

These are not offhand comments from fringe figures. These are official statements from the highest levels of government. They suggest a willingness to punish legally protected speech with job loss, immigration consequences, and career destruction.

And here is a point too often ignored: many conservatives claim the Second Amendment exists to protect against government tyranny. But the First Amendment is the first line of defense. Without free speech, the right to think, argue, dissent, and criticize, the Second Amendment has no purpose.

If you are serious about defending liberty, you must defend the First Amendment as vigorously as the Second.

---

Conclusion: Holding the Line

Free speech is not about liking the words you hear. It is about tolerating the ones you hate. Bondi, Hegseth, and Rubio have reminded us how fragile this principle becomes when politics and tragedy collide.

The First Amendment does not bend depending on which side you are on. Trump and Kirk were protected when their words were labeled hateful. Their critics are protected too. Once you carve out exceptions for convenience, the entire principle collapses.

If you value freedom, hold the line here. Defend free expression even when it offends you, because the same protections that shield others today will shield you tomorrow.

[Watch the full episode here]
[Listen to the podcast here]

---

Your Turn:
Do you think the U.S. should ever adopt hate speech laws like Canada or Germany? Or is the First Amendment’s broader protection the better path? Share your thoughts in the comments below. I read and respond to all of them.

And if you haven’t yet, subscribe to the YouTube channel or podcast to be part of these conversations. Together, we can keep building Atheistville into a community that values reason, free thought, and open dialogue.

---