Constitutional Crisis: Left and Right Unite Against Bondi's Speech Crackdown

Paul Riverbank, 9/17/2025Attorney General's hate speech crackdown faces unified opposition, highlighting First Amendment's protection of controversial expression.

The Free Speech Tightrope: Unpacking the Bondi Controversy

The latest flashpoint in America's ongoing debate over free expression emerged this week when Attorney General Pam Bondi waded into treacherous constitutional waters. Her comments about cracking down on hate speech didn't just raise eyebrows – they set off alarm bells across the political spectrum.

I've covered speech debates for three decades, but rarely have I seen such swift bipartisan pushback. When Bondi declared "There's free speech, and then there's hate speech," she stumbled into a legal fiction that courts have repeatedly rejected. The Constitution doesn't recognize this distinction, despite its popular usage.

What's particularly striking about this episode is how it's united unlikely allies. Picture this: Charlie Kirk and civil liberties advocates finding themselves on the same side of an issue. Kirk's assertion that "hate speech doesn't exist legally" may be blunt, but it's legally accurate. The Supreme Court has consistently protected even deeply offensive speech, save for very narrow exceptions.

Bondi's attempt to clarify her position on X (formerly Twitter) only highlighted the confusion underlying the original statement. By pivoting to "threats of violence," she effectively moved the goalposts from protected speech to established criminal behavior – two very different legal territories.

I was particularly struck by FCC Chair Brendan Carr's intervention at the POLITICO summit. His measured reminder that our First Amendment protects "almost all speech" cuts through the noise with surgical precision. It's the kind of clear-headed analysis that's often missing from these heated debates.

Donald Trump's response – accusing a reporter of having "hate in your heart" – ironically demonstrates why protecting unpopular speech matters. Today's speech regulators can become tomorrow's targets, as Rep. Nancy Mace pointedly warned.

The real challenge isn't defining hate speech – it's protecting fundamental rights while addressing genuine threats. Having covered similar controversies since the '90s, I've watched this pendulum swing back and forth. But the Constitution's position hasn't changed: The answer to offensive speech isn't government restriction – it's more speech.

Matt Walsh's characterization of hate speech as "meaningless" might be provocative, but it underscores a crucial point: Who defines hate? History shows us the dangers of empowering authorities to make that call.

As we navigate this latest chapter in America's free speech saga, we'd do well to remember that the First Amendment wasn't designed for popular speech – it was designed precisely for the speech we find most challenging. That's not just constitutional theory – it's the bedrock of a free society.

The Free Speech Tightrope: Unpacking the Bondi ControversyThe latest flashpoint in America's ongoing debate over free expression emerged this week when Attorney General Pam Bondi waded into treacherous constitutional waters. Her comments about cracking down on hate speech didn't just raise eyebrows – they set off alarm bells across the political spectrum.I've covered speech debates for three decades, but rarely have I seen such swift bipartisan pushback. When Bondi declared "There's free speech, and then there's hate speech," she stumbled into a legal fiction that courts have repeatedly rejected. The Constitution doesn't recognize this distinction, despite its popular usage.What's particularly striking about this episode is how it's united unlikely allies. Picture this: Charlie Kirk and civil liberties advocates finding themselves on the same side of an issue. Kirk's assertion that "hate speech doesn't exist legally" may be blunt, but it's legally accurate. The Supreme Court has consistently protected even deeply offensive speech, save for very narrow exceptions.Bondi's attempt to clarify her position on X (formerly Twitter) only highlighted the confusion underlying the original statement. By pivoting to "threats of violence," she effectively moved the goalposts from protected speech to established criminal behavior – two very different legal territories.I was particularly struck by FCC Chair Brendan Carr's intervention at the POLITICO summit. His measured reminder that our First Amendment protects "almost all speech" cuts through the noise with surgical precision. It's the kind of clear-headed analysis that's often missing from these heated debates.Donald Trump's response – accusing a reporter of having "hate in your heart" – ironically demonstrates why protecting unpopular speech matters. Today's speech regulators can become tomorrow's targets, as Rep. Nancy Mace pointedly warned.The real challenge isn't defining hate speech – it's protecting fundamental rights while addressing genuine threats. Having covered similar controversies since the '90s, I've watched this pendulum swing back and forth. But the Constitution's position hasn't changed: The answer to offensive speech isn't government restriction – it's more speech.Matt Walsh's characterization of hate speech as "meaningless" might be provocative, but it underscores a crucial point: Who defines hate? History shows us the dangers of empowering authorities to make that call.As we navigate this latest chapter in America's free speech saga, we'd do well to remember that the First Amendment wasn't designed for popular speech – it was designed precisely for the speech we find most challenging. That's not just constitutional theory – it's the bedrock of a free society.