Pam Bondi went on Katie Miller’s podcast this week and dropped a line that should send chills down the spine of anyone who cares about the Constitution. She did not stumble or hedge. She said it flat out: “There’s free speech and then there’s hate speech. We will absolutely target you, go after you if you are targeting anyone with hate speech.”

Excuse me? That’s not how the Constitution works. There is no “hate speech” exception in the First Amendment. In fact, the Supreme Court has spent decades making it clear: the government doesn’t get to police ideas, opinions, or words just because they offend someone.

Bondi should know better. Instead, she’s parroting the same progressive line the Left has been pushing for years, that speech they dislike can be rebranded as “hate” and punished. The problem is, once the government gets that power, it won’t stop at silencing the fringe. It will eventually come for you, me, and anyone who doesn’t toe the approved line.

What the Constitution Actually Protects

The First Amendment is blunt and uncompromising. Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. There is no asterisk. There is no footnote that says unless someone gets offended.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. – The U.S. Bill of Rights

Over time, courts have carved out only the narrowest exceptions. Direct threats of violence. Incitement to imminent lawless action. Defamation. Obscenity. That is about it. Notice what is missing. Hate speech.

The Supreme Court has made this clear again and again. Offensive speech, even vile and ugly speech, is still protected. Consider just a few examples:

• Texas v. Johnson (1989)
  The Court ruled that burning the American flag is protected expression.
  If torching Old Glory is free speech, then ugly words are too.
• Matal v. Tam (2017)
  The Court said there is no hate speech exception to the First Amendment when it struck down a law against disparaging trademarks.
  The justices made it plain. Offensive ideas do not lose protection just because they offend.
• Snyder v. Phelps (2011)
  The Court protected the right of protesters to hold deeply offensive signs at a military funeral.
  If even that kind of cruelty is protected, then DOJ has no business inventing new categories of forbidden speech.

None of these rulings endorsed the messages. They defended the principle. Free speech exists to protect the unpopular because popular ideas do not need protection. If the First Amendment can guard flag burning, offensive band names, and funeral protests, it can certainly protect whatever Pam Bondi decides to call hate speech in 2025.

Pam Bondi is absolutely wrong here. 100% wrong. I’ll let Charlie himself correct her. pic.twitter.com/It6c26kjl3

— The Dank Knight (@capeandcowell) September 16, 2025

Charlie Kirk literally died defending the principle that Pam Bondi is trashing. Just unreal. https://t.co/Ui5ENDMT4J pic.twitter.com/p8rXUnzpu0

— Hans Mahncke (@HansMahncke) September 16, 2025

Why Bondi’s Words Are Dangerous

Bondi’s promise is not just sloppy language. It is a dangerous flirtation with authoritarianism. And it tells us something else too. This administration likes to preach transparency. Fine. I am all for transparency. But if you are going to be this open about turning the Department of Justice into a speech police force, then you had better expect to be called out for it.

I expected better from Bondi. She built her career as a tough prosecutor and a conservative voice. She knows the law, or she should. Hearing her casually divide the First Amendment into acceptable and unacceptable speech is disappointing, and it shows how quickly even the right can drift once power takes hold.

via GIPHY

The problem is simple. Hate speech has no definition in American law, and giving government the power to invent one is a dangerous road. Once that door is open, it will not stop with extremists. It will expand to silence whatever the ruling class dislikes.

That threat alone is enough to make people censor themselves, which is easier for government to enforce than outright prosecution. And history shows where this ends. Today it is offensive speech. Tomorrow it is political opponents.

Pam Bondi should know better. Instead of playing guest star on podcasts, she ought to be doing her job. Protect the Constitution, do not erode it.

Censorship Has Always Been the Goal

This is exactly what the Left has wanted for decades. They have pushed the idea that speech should be divided into categories, that words they dislike can be branded as hate and stripped of protection. They could never win that fight in the Supreme Court, so they built the framework elsewhere. And here is the double standard. The Left feels free to hurl hate speech at conservatives every day, from the campus quad to cable news.

Universities enforce speech codes that punish students for stepping outside progressive orthodoxy. Big Tech censors posts and suspends accounts for crossing ideological red lines. Activists shout down speakers and call it justice. All of it has been a dress rehearsal for the day when the federal government joins in.

Between this “hate speech” nonsense and Epstein, Pam Bondi has committed two of the most egregious errors we’ve ever seen from an Attorney General. How many seismic fuck ups will Trump permit her before he cuts her loose? Is this a ten strikes and you’re out deal or what?

— Matt Walsh (@MattWalshBlog) September 16, 2025

President Trump: “I think Pam Bondi has done an unbelievable job and everybody agrees with that. And Kash, take a look at what he did with respect to this horrible person in two days. I have confidence in everybody in the administration.” pic.twitter.com/Co3SS3fkwV

— TheBlaze (@theblaze) September 16, 2025

OY VEY!

Let the Words Fall Where They May

Instead of inventing new categories like hate speech and using them to chip away at our constitutional rights, we ought to let the words fall where they may. If someone wants to make a fool of themselves online, that is their right under the First Amendment. Free speech does not mean freedom from criticism. It means the government cannot shut you down for your ideas. If you say something offensive or ignorant, society will judge you, your reputation may take a hit, and people may choose not to listen. That is how accountability works in a free country, not by handing Washington the power to decide who can and cannot speak.

This has never been about protecting people. It has always been about controlling them. Once the government takes the lead, the Left finally gets the power it has been craving, the power to decide what Americans are allowed to say and think. And that is why I am still surprised to hear this kind of talk coming from Pam Bondi. I want to give her the benefit of the doubt, but she knows the law too well to stumble into this by accident.

When Liberty Is on the Line

Bondi’s comments were a gut punch for anyone who cares about free speech. The fact that she’s a Republican makes it even worse. This isn’t just a Democrat problem. It’s a political class problem. Too many leaders, left and right, are comfortable trading liberty for applause.

But free speech is not negotiable. It’s the bedrock of every other right we hold. Once the government decides what words are allowed, everything else—faith, assembly, press, politics—collapses.

Pam Bondi may think she’s being tough. What she’s really doing is handing the keys of censorship to Washington, D.C.

And it’s up to us to say, loudly, NOPE.

Featured image: original Victory Girls art by Darleen Click