According to AG Pam Bondi: āThere's free speech and then there's hate speechā¦ We will absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech."
There is no red.
There is no blue.
There is the State.
And there is you.
Discussion
Exactly. It's almost a blessing that it is so obvious what these people are trying to do. It can unite the whole country.
Slippery slopeā¦this is how Europe entered the arena as well and now they are arresting citizens for posts online against their government or organizationsā¦because what you think seems harmless
The real issue comes down to how āHate Speechā is defined. If itās āwords I donāt likeā then that is tyrannical. If itās āYou canāt incite people to commit violent acts on peaceful people without consequencesā that is a completely valid definition. Iād like to see more of the context surrounding the interview before passing judgment on a single sentence.
Stopping incitement to violence is just another excuse for tyranny. War mongering politicians and media opinions already do it on a daily basis, but they're not the target. Laws can't be fuzzy and "incitement to violence" is very much up to (political) interpretation, and that's why they push that angle. Don't buy it.
I agree with you that it is a slippery slope and that politicians are the worst offenders. however, I take significant issue with the idea that all forms of āspeechā should enjoy complete immunity from consequences. Iām not saying that is your argument and I donāt think the Federal Gov should be regulating much of anything. But I do believe a nuanced argument can be had around the idea of groups regulating speech of individuals on some level and in some way. Ideally without state sponsored violence.
Gross
They are programming people to accept being censored. Maybe because their totalitarian system will be so badly unjust and evil that people will be too much afraid to complain or denounce. AI will monitor EVERYTHING being said online, since everyone will be KYC'd with digital IDs
They draw a line, and then the line moves depending on where the wind is blowing fromā¦.
"Hate speech does not exist legally in America. There's ugly speech. There's gross speech. There's evil speech.
And ALL of it is protected by the First Amendment.
Keep America free."
-Charlie Kirk
Bingo
"Hate speech does not exist legally in America. There's ugly speech. There's gross speech. There's evil speech.
And ALL of it is protected by the First Amendment.
Keep America free."
-Charlie Kirk
Free speech means all of it.
She's lost her mind.
Fuckin ridiculous
Wow. I never realized how Orwellian the term "hate speech" is...
Speech the state hates
That woman is awful
Pam Bondi, leftiste extraordinaire.
And here I thought the Trump people tried to explicitly not do what the Biden people did but this could be a verbatim Karine Jean-Pierre quote.
She's talking about politicians, just the politicians. They don't care when we regular people hate-speech each other.
"We will target you..."
By their own metrics, that sounds like pure hate speech to me.
When the government does it, it's honorable
The Trump administration is operating within the bounds of existing law. The law clearly states that making threats such as "I will kill you" is illegal. These laws were already in place before the Trump administration took office.
The Trump administration is using these laws to hold individuals accountable, including those on the left, who may engage in criminal behavior. These laws are not new, they were established long before.
Regarding the First Amendment, some people argue that it protects all speech, including threats, as "free speech." However, the law recognizes that while speech is protected, certain actions like actually following through on a threat are illegal. The courts have clarified that speech that incites violence or poses a real danger is not protected under the First Amendment.
This process of judicial clarification also happened with the Second Amendment. Over time, courts have interpreted what types of firearms are legal and which are not, even though the Second Amendment itself does not specify this in detail.
While I believe the government has sometimes overreached in limiting certain rights, including freedom of speech, it's important to recognize that the courts have continually refined the meaning of both the First and Second Amendments.
I believe these clarifications were an infringement on the constitution.
Restricting speech is allowing the government to censor what people say, and could also lead to people hiding their true intentions.
The Trump administration is acting within the framework of laws that were already established. They are not creating new laws; they are enforcing the ones that exist.
While I believe that free speech should be protected in all forms, including controversial or offensive speech and death threats, the law currently prohibits threats of violence. We must follow the law as it stands until we can elect officials who may work to amend it, if thatās the direction we want to go.
GHOULISH