XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.atheism, alt.fun   
   XPost: alt.politics.democrats.d, talk.politics.guns   
   From: x@y.com   
      
   Lou Bricano wrote:   
      
   >Pam Bondi had to walk back her ‘hate speech’ comments — for good   
   >reason   
   >   
   >The attorney general previously threatened to “go after” Americans   
   >who express “hate speech,” but the nation’s top cop should know   
   >better.   
   >   
   >By Thomas Berry, director of the Robert A. Levy Center for Constitution   
   >Studies at the Cato Institute   
   >Sept. 17, 2025, 4:31 PM PDT   
   >   
   >On Monday, Attorney General Pamela Bondi warned that this administration   
   >“will absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone   
   >with hate speech.”   
   >   
   >But that is simply not allowed under the First Amendment, at least as the   
   >Supreme Court has applied it for more than half a century. The nation’s   
   >chief law enforcement officer should know better. There is no “hate   
   >speech” exception to the First Amendment. Not surprisingly, after a   
   >fierce backlash from many of the Trump administration’s allies, Bondi   
   >has since attempted to walk back her statement, claiming that she was   
   >speaking only of “hate speech that crosses the line into threats of   
   >violence.”   
   >   
   >Bondi’s comments came in the wake of the murder of Charlie Kirk, to   
   >which some have reacted by saying Kirk was not worthy of being mourned.   
   >As distasteful as Bondi and many others may find these comments, they are   
   >constitutionally protected. Even celebrations of Kirk’s murder could   
   >not be punished by the government. The Supreme Court made that clear in a   
   >case that similarly dealt with disrespect of the dead.   
   >   
   >In Snyder v. Phelps (2011), the Supreme Court considered a lawsuit   
   >against the Westboro Baptist Church, a small sect that brought attention   
   >to itself by protesting at soldiers’ funerals with offensive signs,   
   >carrying messages like “Thank God for Dead Soldiers.” The father of   
   >one such soldier sued the church, arguing that one such protest at his   
   >son’s funeral had brought him intense emotional distress.   
   >   
   >But in an 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court held that the protest was   
   >protected by the First Amendment and the father could not win damages   
   >from the church. In an understatement, the court acknowledged that the   
   >choice to picket at a soldier’s funeral “made the expression of [the   
   >church’s] views particularly hurtful to many.”   
   >   
   >Nonetheless, as the Supreme Court explained, “Such speech cannot be   
   >restricted simply because it is upsetting or arouses contempt.” As the   
   >court had held in Texas v. Johnson (1989) — upholding the First   
   >Amendment right to burn an American flag — it is “a bedrock principle   
   >underlying the First Amendment … that the government may not prohibit   
   >the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself   
   >offensive or disagreeable.” The court reaffirmed that “the point of   
   >all speech protection … is to shield just those choices of content that   
   >in someone’s eyes are misguided, or even hurtful.”   
   >   
   >Why does the First Amendment protect hurtful speech like disrespect for   
   >the dead? After all, as the court acknowledged, “funeral picketing is   
   >certainly hurtful and its contribution to public discourse may be   
   >negligible.”   
   >   
   >But it would be dangerous to allow the government to become the arbiter   
   >for what speech is tasteful and inbounds. There is simply too much risk   
   >that policymakers and enforcement officers would use that power to shut   
   >down debate or suppress disfavored views by means of biased application.   
   >As the court put it, we “must tolerate insulting, and even outrageous,   
   >speech in order to provide adequate ‘breathing space’ to the freedoms   
   >protected by the First Amendment.”   
   >   
   >This principle has been reaffirmed in several Supreme Court cases. It   
   >applies not just to speech disparaging particular people, but to entire   
   >groups. In Matal v. Tam (2017), the Supreme Court struck down a law that   
   >prohibited trademarking terms or slogans that may be disparaging to   
   >people or groups. As Justice Samuel Alito wrote in his plurality opinion,   
   >“Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion,   
   >age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest   
   >boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to   
   >express ‘the thought that we hate.’”   
   >   
   >https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/pam-bondi-hate-speech-first-am   
   >endment-comments-rcna231768?fbclid=IwY2xjawM6UIdleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHjI2pIwR1   
   >W2vWcB1M5uqCCSZ9CokO4QdYsKaN7PoT_DAvFtmBpENk7iHw7Xv_aem_2o_c-7ZCJvMKWpwNZw   
   >8KSQ   
   >   
   >Blondi is a fucking peroxide blonde moron.   
   >   
      
   She's a fucking blonde bimbo tRUMP DEI hire.   No excuse.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)