There is, however, incitement to murder which is a crime. Calls for Trump, Musk, Kennedy and even Nigel Farage to be killed is definitely worth prosecuting.
The Epstein blunder and now this... She honestly should be fired. This is exactly what we DON'T need. We can win with ideas! We do not need to do exactly as the enemy has done.
I think this is part of a much bigger play at work here. The fact that we see Netanyahu jumping on the bandwagon within the first couple hours, Congress travelling to Israel for the "50 States, One Israel" dog and pony show, and the raft of legislation and policies aimed at silencing anyone critical of Israel's effort to completely destroy or displace every last person trapped in Gaza... all points to a coordinated push on behalf of Israel. It's also telling that Bibi has to circulate a 5-yr old clip of CK in order to bolster his claims of Kirk's complete and unquestioning loyalty to him and Israel, completely ignoring the change in opinion regarding Gaza and acknowledgement of Bibi's corruption.
My take away is hateful speech is legal as long as it does not threaten or incite violence. And isn’t that the grey area we are in with so much of the “hate speech”? From Jeff Childers @ Covid and Coffee: “🔥 But not according to Democrats and their progressive allies. While top Democrats remained silent, rank-and-file progressives whined about invasions of their First Amendment speech. In other words, they implicitly argued that, even if their words were hateful, they should still enjoy constitutional protection.
That is legally false.
First of all, the Supreme Court has long and repeatedly held that speech intended to incite violence is not protected by the First Amendment. There are boundaries, of course; to be considered “inciteful,” the speech must meet certain conditions and not simply reflect some general sentiment. “Let’s fight back!”, for example, is not inciteful speech.
But that’s not what we’re looking at here, is it?
Second, and maybe more important, employees generally do not enjoy any First Amendment protection, even for their private words posted to social media. Private employers aren’t constrained by the First Amendment. Only the government is.
In early 2021, I consulted with many employees who’d been fired for posting things on social media questioning the legitimacy of the 2020 election. In one case, a woman who’d worked at a commercial real estate broker’s office for 22 years was fired after posting a meme on her private Facebook page amusingly captioned, “Joe and the Hoe.”
I had to sadly inform her that, since she was an “at will” employee, there was nothing that could legally be done about it.”
I think Bondi’s definition of “hate speech” might differ from the Woke Left’s version. She shouldn’t have used the term “hate speech,” but I think that’s the only valid criticism.
LOL James Lindsay invented that non-term to describe anyone on the Right who was against Israeli domination of US foreign policy.
Try it for yourself, post anything Right on X and then anything against genocide and watch yourself get swarmed by AI accounts calling you that.
Kirk got killed shortly after becoming disillusioned by Israel and being the subject of struggle sessions in DC by powerful Jewish billionaires like Bill Ackman. Netanyahu got on video after the killing to specifically deny Israel was involved in any way.
As far as I can tell, James didn't coin that term (I've dug way back in his writings and podcasts), he simply latched onto it as a means of trying to belittle anyone questioning Israel's actions in Gaza.
We went from “freedom of speech” to “freedom of interpretation.” Everything is hate speech, and anything can be hurtful. Yet our economy is driven by our right of Independence. Meaning everyone’s silo is potentially a cash cow. Enter Charlie Kirk—his success is not merely political; it is entrepreneurial. He has effectively capitalized on a perception of institutional alienation, building a vast and powerful silo that aggregates and amplifies the voices of those who feel disenfranchised by mainstream narratives. The content of that silo is often opaque to outsiders, but its existence is a testament to the core principle of free speech: its members are, indeed, free to associate and communicate within their own domain.
The challenge for a healthy democracy, therefore, is no longer to protect speech from government censorship. It is to navigate a world where speech is weaponized within insulated economies of belief, where the right to be heard is simultaneously amplified by technology and constrained by tribal allegiance. The great debate of our time may be whether these digital silos are the ultimate expression of free association or the very thing that is preventing the marketplace of ideas from functioning at all.
I would argue that the "Woke Right", asinine as that term is, are simply Leftists. We do not have to dissect all of the nuances between the "flavors" of authoritarian abuses to understand that it is, all of it, coming from a fundamentally Leftist ideology.
With Charlie Kirk being among the few truly "conservative" public figures, I hope Americans will finally see a clearer distinction between "conservative" and Conservative, Inc.
First, know that the Enlightenment was a a philosophical honey-pile, based on the delusional idea that Human Nature does not exist and that all men should live on the basis of Reason alone. Actual human beings don't operate this way -- never did, don't now, and never will. The dogmatic idea of freedom of speech is just as insane as the thought that there ought to be freedom of grocery -- anybody can sell any meat he wants to, and let the buyer beware. And the wrong words can be infinitely more deadly than the raunchiest meat. Of course, our Founders were only operating on the basis of a half-baked theory -- in real life blasphemy (against the Christian faith only) was outlawed in every Colony and 'fighting words' could be fought over with fists, knives, or pistols instead of lawsuits. Societies where hate speech can't be challenged by the aggrieved don't deserve to survive, and they won't -- for long.
Pam Bondi has lost the love of many Trump supporters. She is unskillful dealing with the public facing part of her job and perhaps much more. I’m against using free speech, unassociated with the workplace, as a reason to fire people in most circumstances. We should be able to know who sux by what they say, instead of finding out after they do violence. Only in favor of handing the direct threats in a punitive fashion, such as the ones calling to un-alive Kirk’s family.
Would you want the person who wrote the piece saying Charlie deserved to die teaching your child? Determining his school curriculum? Deciding what your priority level for getting a new vaccine was? Etc.
I say no. I don't know if I'd arrest such a person (I might want them monitored to ensure they aren't planning terrorism). But I'd be fine if they got fired from their job.
Thank you for writing this accurate article.
Pam Bondi seems not to know the first thing about constitutional law, particularly the First Amendment.
Clearly she needs a refresher course. The Florida Bar should demand it.
thanks I just saw you liked this article on twitter so i followed you there 👍
Thank you, Christopher.
There is, however, incitement to murder which is a crime. Calls for Trump, Musk, Kennedy and even Nigel Farage to be killed is definitely worth prosecuting.
There is a difference between protected speech and inciting violence. Where are the dead bodies involved with the previous cases you cite?
Amen! This is so disturbing!
Finally a good piece.
I'd like to remind you that groyper antisemites like Nick Fuentes absolutely hate free speech.
And the speech they hate most is the carefully written article, "The Top 50 Nick Fuentes Pedophile Scandals."
Which was written by...Christopher Brunet!
The Epstein blunder and now this... She honestly should be fired. This is exactly what we DON'T need. We can win with ideas! We do not need to do exactly as the enemy has done.
I think this is part of a much bigger play at work here. The fact that we see Netanyahu jumping on the bandwagon within the first couple hours, Congress travelling to Israel for the "50 States, One Israel" dog and pony show, and the raft of legislation and policies aimed at silencing anyone critical of Israel's effort to completely destroy or displace every last person trapped in Gaza... all points to a coordinated push on behalf of Israel. It's also telling that Bibi has to circulate a 5-yr old clip of CK in order to bolster his claims of Kirk's complete and unquestioning loyalty to him and Israel, completely ignoring the change in opinion regarding Gaza and acknowledgement of Bibi's corruption.
The intentions of ZOG are telegraphed from miles away: we want to eliminate the speech of our enemies.
My take away is hateful speech is legal as long as it does not threaten or incite violence. And isn’t that the grey area we are in with so much of the “hate speech”? From Jeff Childers @ Covid and Coffee: “🔥 But not according to Democrats and their progressive allies. While top Democrats remained silent, rank-and-file progressives whined about invasions of their First Amendment speech. In other words, they implicitly argued that, even if their words were hateful, they should still enjoy constitutional protection.
That is legally false.
First of all, the Supreme Court has long and repeatedly held that speech intended to incite violence is not protected by the First Amendment. There are boundaries, of course; to be considered “inciteful,” the speech must meet certain conditions and not simply reflect some general sentiment. “Let’s fight back!”, for example, is not inciteful speech.
But that’s not what we’re looking at here, is it?
Second, and maybe more important, employees generally do not enjoy any First Amendment protection, even for their private words posted to social media. Private employers aren’t constrained by the First Amendment. Only the government is.
In early 2021, I consulted with many employees who’d been fired for posting things on social media questioning the legitimacy of the 2020 election. In one case, a woman who’d worked at a commercial real estate broker’s office for 22 years was fired after posting a meme on her private Facebook page amusingly captioned, “Joe and the Hoe.”
I had to sadly inform her that, since she was an “at will” employee, there was nothing that could legally be done about it.”
I think Bondi’s definition of “hate speech” might differ from the Woke Left’s version. She shouldn’t have used the term “hate speech,” but I think that’s the only valid criticism.
NONSENSE!! Bondy said that ~we are watching you~. She promised nothing of action to anyone.
Nevertheless, if you saw a message saying "I'm going to take him out", would you report it to the police.
You inserted your "far-left" lens to interpret Bondi's words.n BAD FORM!
LOL James Lindsay invented that non-term to describe anyone on the Right who was against Israeli domination of US foreign policy.
Try it for yourself, post anything Right on X and then anything against genocide and watch yourself get swarmed by AI accounts calling you that.
Kirk got killed shortly after becoming disillusioned by Israel and being the subject of struggle sessions in DC by powerful Jewish billionaires like Bill Ackman. Netanyahu got on video after the killing to specifically deny Israel was involved in any way.
AIPAC must register as a foreign agent!
AIPAC must register as a foreign agent and then be deported.
As far as I can tell, James didn't coin that term (I've dug way back in his writings and podcasts), he simply latched onto it as a means of trying to belittle anyone questioning Israel's actions in Gaza.
We went from “freedom of speech” to “freedom of interpretation.” Everything is hate speech, and anything can be hurtful. Yet our economy is driven by our right of Independence. Meaning everyone’s silo is potentially a cash cow. Enter Charlie Kirk—his success is not merely political; it is entrepreneurial. He has effectively capitalized on a perception of institutional alienation, building a vast and powerful silo that aggregates and amplifies the voices of those who feel disenfranchised by mainstream narratives. The content of that silo is often opaque to outsiders, but its existence is a testament to the core principle of free speech: its members are, indeed, free to associate and communicate within their own domain.
The challenge for a healthy democracy, therefore, is no longer to protect speech from government censorship. It is to navigate a world where speech is weaponized within insulated economies of belief, where the right to be heard is simultaneously amplified by technology and constrained by tribal allegiance. The great debate of our time may be whether these digital silos are the ultimate expression of free association or the very thing that is preventing the marketplace of ideas from functioning at all.
I would argue that the "Woke Right", asinine as that term is, are simply Leftists. We do not have to dissect all of the nuances between the "flavors" of authoritarian abuses to understand that it is, all of it, coming from a fundamentally Leftist ideology.
With Charlie Kirk being among the few truly "conservative" public figures, I hope Americans will finally see a clearer distinction between "conservative" and Conservative, Inc.
Do you think all authoritarianism is inherently leftist? I have some bad news for you.
I responded but Substack placed it outside of this thread, so you'll see my response in the main thread.
First, know that the Enlightenment was a a philosophical honey-pile, based on the delusional idea that Human Nature does not exist and that all men should live on the basis of Reason alone. Actual human beings don't operate this way -- never did, don't now, and never will. The dogmatic idea of freedom of speech is just as insane as the thought that there ought to be freedom of grocery -- anybody can sell any meat he wants to, and let the buyer beware. And the wrong words can be infinitely more deadly than the raunchiest meat. Of course, our Founders were only operating on the basis of a half-baked theory -- in real life blasphemy (against the Christian faith only) was outlawed in every Colony and 'fighting words' could be fought over with fists, knives, or pistols instead of lawsuits. Societies where hate speech can't be challenged by the aggrieved don't deserve to survive, and they won't -- for long.
Pam Bondi has lost the love of many Trump supporters. She is unskillful dealing with the public facing part of her job and perhaps much more. I’m against using free speech, unassociated with the workplace, as a reason to fire people in most circumstances. We should be able to know who sux by what they say, instead of finding out after they do violence. Only in favor of handing the direct threats in a punitive fashion, such as the ones calling to un-alive Kirk’s family.
"And yet, vile as that essay is, it should remain online, because Charlie Kirk of all people would have defended its right to exist."
Picky question that's a bit separate from the author's point:
If the speech in question is posted on someone else's platform, does the platform get to decide if it stays up?
I'm thinking the platform gets to decide.
Would you want the person who wrote the piece saying Charlie deserved to die teaching your child? Determining his school curriculum? Deciding what your priority level for getting a new vaccine was? Etc.
I say no. I don't know if I'd arrest such a person (I might want them monitored to ensure they aren't planning terrorism). But I'd be fine if they got fired from their job.