I commit the First Amendment every day. I write, I publish, I dissent. So do you. Every text, every post, every gripe at the bar is protected by the same amendment. That’s the deal in America: speech is speech. You don’t need a license. You don’t need permission.
But now, in the fury after Charlie Kirk’s assassination, we’ve got government officials blurring that line and joining the mob and rewriting the First Amendment.
-
Attorney General Pam Bondi promised the DOJ will “absolutely target you … if you are targeting anyone with hate speech.”
-
Vice President J.D. Vance called for dragging employers into it — urging professional consequences for those who mocked or cheered Kirk’s death.
-
House Republicans are pushing censure resolutions against Rep. Ilhan Omar for her remarks.
And the result? People are being fired, blacklisted, canceled — not for pulling a trigger, but for saying the wrong words in the wrong tone. Private pressure is bad enough. When the state piles on, it’s a constitutional fire alarm.
Speech Is Speech: Legal Reality
Here’s where the compass should be checked:
-
There is no constitutional “hate speech” exception. U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed repeatedly that most speech, even if hateful, is protected.
-
The landmark Matal v. Tam (2017) decision explicitly reaffirmed that disparaging speech is protected, even if people find it offensive.
“Speech may not be banned on the ground that it expresses ideas that offend.” Justice Alito -
Exceptions exist — speech that incites imminent lawless action, true threats, or very narrowly defined “fighting words” are not protected. But those are the boundaries, not general free speech override.
Why This Matters
When government figures talk of “targeting hate speech” broadly — without specifying legal limits — they risk crossing into constitutional violation. Vague policing of “offensive,” “hateful,” or “disrespectful” speech opens the door to punishing dissent, criticism, satire, and even political opposition.
I live this: every harsh headline, every controversial story, I trust — and I depend on — the protection of free speech. If the gov gets to decide what speech is too “hate-filled,” then free speech becomes free for those in power, a privilege, not a right.
Bottom Line:
Speech isn’t just what you and I like. It’s what we protect — especially speech we despise. Because once someone grants themselves the power to punish “hate speech” in the general sense, they give themselves the power to decide which ideas survive. And the government with that power? It’s not just risky. It’s unconstitutional.