A month ago a tragedy occurred. A man was killed for utilizing his freedom of speech. This is true regardless of whether or not you agree with Charlie Kirk on his various opinions.
In the following week Attorney General Pamela Bondi made a statement that was found disturbing by people on both sides of the political aisle. While on the Katie Miller podcast, Pamela Bondi asserted, “There’s free speech and then there’s hate speech. And there is no place [for hate speech], especially now, especially after what happened to Charlie, in our society.”
When asked by Miller whether law enforcement would pursue and arrest groups using hate speech, Bondi responded, “We will absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech – and that’s across the aisle.” (Katie Miller Podcast 09/15/2025, 12:30-13:01 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LRPHxSrLTE ).
These comments have garnered support from some conservatives while sparking outrage and criticism from all quarters. Notably, right-wing political commentator Matt Walsh, posted on X, “There should be social consequences for those who openly celebrate the murder of an innocent man. But there obviously should not be any legal repercussions for “hate speech,” which is not even a valid or coherent concept. There is no law against saying hateful things, and there shouldn’t be.” (Sept. 15, 2025 https://x.com/MattWalshBlog/status/1967788760210321536 retrieved Sept. 19th, 2025).
Likewise many liberals, feeling targeted due to the political context of the statement, have been furiously posting on social media in response to Bondi’s comment. These circumstances beg the questions: “Should these statements be concerning to American citizens regardless of political leanings?” and “Does the federal government have the constitutional power to prosecute hate speech?” To understand the proper place of government in the realm of free speech we must first comprehend the laws surrounding speech that are currently in place.
The primary law affecting this conversation is the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for the redress of grievances.” (U.S. Const. Amend. I)
This wording clearly demonstrates that there is no distinction made between different types of speech that are protected. However, some very specific types of speech are currently punishable and for good reason.
Within the U.S. Criminal Code, the two categories of punishable speech currently are conspiracy (Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, U.S.C. title 18 § 373) and direct or real threats. (Criminal Code of 1948, U.S.C. title 18 § 875-876) The law regarding conspiracies specifies, “Whoever with intent that another person engage in conduct constituting a felony that has as an element the use, attempted use or threatened use of physical force against property or against the person of another in violation of the laws of the United States…shall be imprisoned… or fined…” (Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, U.S.C. title 18 § 373(a)) This law criminalizes the act of using speech to persuade another person to commit a violent felony. Nevertheless, it does not criminalize the act of posting or speaking hateful things about someone else. Only when it leaves the realm of “I hate ..” and enters the area of “Let’s kill, or harm…” is it punishable by the law.
The second category of unlawful speech is direct or real threats. These laws (Criminal Code of 1948, U.S.C. title 18 § 875-876) define the crime of mailing threats or knowingly assisting in the delivery of them. The crimes described are threats with the purpose to extort money or some other benefit, as well as general threats to harm the recipient or any other person. Examples include saying things such as “I will kill you” or “I will kill your family.”
These current Federal laws surrounding the ideas of free speech and hate speech demonstrate something important about the limitations of the Federal Government in regards to hate speech. From these laws we understand that the government may not interfere with hateful speech unless it falls into the two categories of conspiracy (Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, U.S.C. title 18 § 373) or real threats through the means of interstate communication, namely postal services or social media (Criminal Code of 1948, U.S.C. title 18 § 875-876). This is not an overreach since we can all agree that we should not plot to kill or harm someone regardless of what they believe, and it is the very purpose of government to safeguard our rights: “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness” (The Declaration of Independence, 1776, para, 2).
If someone is given death threats every other day, then it will be rather hard for them to pursue happiness. Surely some of the speech commonly called hate speech may fall into one of these categories, but a large portion would not and thus the federal government cannot legally prosecute people for hate speech. With the legal background and the government’s jurisdiction understood, we must now address whether freedom of speech is — or should be — a partisan issue.
From a traditional American point of view, the issue of free speech cannot and should not be a partisan issue. Though many policies and agencies may be disputed by this party or that, one thing should never be rejected or objected to by any American citizen: The Constitution was not made for a single political party or group of people, but is universal to every American because it protects all of them regardless of their political or religious views. It was made for “We the people…” (U.S. Const. pmbl.). That is why we must protect the limitations that the Constitution places on the government, especially in regards to freedom of speech. The moment that the First Amendment ceases to apply to all Americans is the moment that we cease to be able to seek and find Truth.
It is plain to see that so long as those who utilize their freedom of speech do so peaceably and do not conspire to commit crimes or violence, then they are protected from prosecution by the Federal government. This is a freedom that must be protected by both major parties. Republicans must do this because they cannot debate Democrats without free speech. Democrats must protect free speech for the same reason.
In summary, no persuasion can be done without speech, and once the right to free speech is gone, no one is safe to convince anyone else about their views or beliefs. In order to protect this fundamental right, we must contact our legislators the moment any hint of any bill comes into play that may erode this freedom. This problem may seem far away in Washington, D.C., but anything that affects free speech will affect everyone across this nation. We do not want to wake up and find we can no longer have a civil disagreement without being in danger of prosecution by the Federal government. We are not there yet, but we should not wait.
Jason R. Chamberlain, Jr.
Linden
Works Referenced
Comprehensive Crime Control Act, U.S.C. Title 18 § 373 (Sept. 13, 1994),
Criminal Code of 1948, U.S.C. Title 18 § 876 (Nov 2, 2002),
Criminal Code of 1948, U.S.C. Title 18 § 875 (Sept. 13, 1994)
The Declaration of Independence (U.S. 1776).
Katie Miller Pod. (2025, Sept. 15). Attorney General Pam Bondi Reacts to Death of Charlie Kirk
Matt Walsh [@MattWalshBlog] (2025, Sept 15)
U.S. Const. Amend. I
U.S. Const. prmbl.
