“Hate speech” has been a big player in the news the last few days.
First, we learned that Tyler Robinson, the alleged (but admitted) murderer of Charlie Kirk, was motivated to take his heinous act because he thought “the guy [Kirk] spreads too much hate.”
Then, on a Monday podcast, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi said “there’s free speech and then there’s hate speech . . . we will absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech, anything—and that’s across the aisle.”
Bondi went on to say “you can’t have that hate speech in the world in which we live. There is no place, especially now, especially after what happened to Charlie, in our society . . . .”
So apparently both Charlie Kirk and his murderer were guilty of hate speech? Clearly the charge of “hate speech!” can be used as a tool by both sides whenever it’s convenient.
Bondi’s comments are particularly troubling given that as Attorney General she is supposed to have a firm grip on the Constitution and federal statutes. Even worse, it was progressives who first came up with the idea of hate speech, and thus of demanding First Amendment exceptions for hate speech and resulting hate crimes.
Conservatives used to oppose, for example, college and university speech codes. We said, “hate speech is free speech” and “every murder involves hate.” Now, apparently conservatives are going to “target” hate speech with the full force of the Justice Department?
Well, no. Conservatives wouldn’t do that. People like AG Bondi are not conservatives. They are right radical populists, unbound by process and principle, using whatever tools are available to accomplish their goals. It’s the horseshoe theory of politics in action. Remember "the end doesn't justify the means"? Populists disagree.
Progressives and populists differ in their preferred outcomes, but share the same disregard for norms, principles, process and rules. Defying the Constitution, exceeding constitutional and statutory authority, and governing by decree rather than through legislation are all fine in pursuit of the preferred outcome.
None of our rights, including First Amendment rights, are absolute, but they are expansive. There are reasonable exceptions to every right in the Bill of Rights. Incitement to violence, for example, or advocating the overthrow of the government, are correctly considered exceptions to free speech protections.
But the concept of hate speech is harmful because it is open to capricious definition and application. Conservatives and libertarians rightly reject it.
___________________________________________
First, we learned that Tyler Robinson, the alleged (but admitted) murderer of Charlie Kirk, was motivated to take his heinous act because he thought “the guy [Kirk] spreads too much hate.”
Then, on a Monday podcast, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi said “there’s free speech and then there’s hate speech . . . we will absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech, anything—and that’s across the aisle.”
Bondi went on to say “you can’t have that hate speech in the world in which we live. There is no place, especially now, especially after what happened to Charlie, in our society . . . .”
So apparently both Charlie Kirk and his murderer were guilty of hate speech? Clearly the charge of “hate speech!” can be used as a tool by both sides whenever it’s convenient.
Bondi’s comments are particularly troubling given that as Attorney General she is supposed to have a firm grip on the Constitution and federal statutes. Even worse, it was progressives who first came up with the idea of hate speech, and thus of demanding First Amendment exceptions for hate speech and resulting hate crimes.
Conservatives used to oppose, for example, college and university speech codes. We said, “hate speech is free speech” and “every murder involves hate.” Now, apparently conservatives are going to “target” hate speech with the full force of the Justice Department?
Well, no. Conservatives wouldn’t do that. People like AG Bondi are not conservatives. They are right radical populists, unbound by process and principle, using whatever tools are available to accomplish their goals. It’s the horseshoe theory of politics in action. Remember "the end doesn't justify the means"? Populists disagree.
Progressives and populists differ in their preferred outcomes, but share the same disregard for norms, principles, process and rules. Defying the Constitution, exceeding constitutional and statutory authority, and governing by decree rather than through legislation are all fine in pursuit of the preferred outcome.
None of our rights, including First Amendment rights, are absolute, but they are expansive. There are reasonable exceptions to every right in the Bill of Rights. Incitement to violence, for example, or advocating the overthrow of the government, are correctly considered exceptions to free speech protections.
But the concept of hate speech is harmful because it is open to capricious definition and application. Conservatives and libertarians rightly reject it.
___________________________________________
Today's PolicyByte was written by Tom Giovanetti, president of the Institute for Policy Innovation.