[ad_1]
Watch Louder with Crowder every weekday at 11:00 AM Eastern, only on Rumble Premium!
There’s free speech, and then there’s free speech. That’s about it, for the most part. I say this because some figures in the government believe that “hate speech” is real, despite a little thing called the First Amendment. Pam Bondi is one of those people. And the worst part? She’s using Charlie Kirk’s name and legacy to justify what amounts to an illegal power grab—something he would have never wanted.
Based on what Bondi has said, it seems the government believes conservatives will line up and beg the authorities to infringe on their freedoms solely because of Kirk’s tragic death. The ironic part is that this is completely antithetical to Kirk’s beliefs.
According to Kirk, “Hate speech does not exist legally in America.” This is an objective, legal fact. One would assume that the United States Attorney General would understand this, but instead she has admitted that anything her government defines as “hateful” could very well be grounds to “target you.”
What even counts as “hateful”? By her logic, would it be illegal to hate her? She’s certainly making it easy to feel that way. She also admits she doesn’t care what side you’re on—as long as you’re hateful, it has no place in America while she is Attorney General.
Maybe these statements are something one would expect to hear from Merrick Garland, but the fact that they are happening under the Trump administration is extremely concerning.
She does realize she doesn’t have the power to override the Constitution under the guise of “hate,” right? Right?!?!
One of the most disrespectful ways to honor Charlie Kirk’s legacy is to use this tragedy to go against everything he believed in. Kirk believed in a free society open to debate, knowing that the only way to combat true “hate” and lies is through the marketplace of ideas—a principle he upheld until the moment he died. The fact that some government figures are ignoring this proves they are not acting in the interest of Charlie or the public.
She’s also not talking about speech that incites a crime, because she would have said that outright. She is keeping it vague and ambiguous on purpose. She’s not referring to words that call for violence or promote conspiracy—otherwise, she would have specified. She’s talking about speech the government doesn’t like.
The Founders believed free speech to be so crucial to a free society that they literally made it the First Amendment.
If I didn’t know any better, I might say that Pam Bondi hates you—but I do know better. And given that, by her own admission, that may not even be legal to say anymore, I most definitely will not be saying it. Likewise, since some statements are apparently no longer allowed in America, I certainly will not say that Bondi is a national embarrassment and utter disappointment, as she might consider that hateful—and therefore illegal.
As Kirk once said, “Keep America free.” That should be the only motto guiding Pam, especially when she claims to act in Charlie’s legacy.
– YouTube www.youtube.com
[ad_2]
Source link
