Conservatives renew demands for Bondi's resignation over 'hate speech' remarks

[Hol]

Conservatives once again are calling for Attorney General Pam Bondi's resignation after she responded to Charlie Kirk's assassination with a vow to crack down on "hate speech."

Bondi made the remarks in an appearance on "The Katie Miller Podcast" on Monday.

"There's free speech and then there's hate speech, and there is no place, especially now, especially after what happened to Charlie, in our society," she said. "We will absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech."

Bondi's use of the term "hate speech", a long-derided phrase that conservatives have warned risks infringement on First Amendment rights, ignited a firestorm on social media.

"We don’t need the DOJ regulating speech, we need to DOJ investigating and arresting the intricate ANTIFA domestic terrorist network that has been targeting, attacking and killing Americans for years.

What the hell is this?" asked conservative pundit Savanah Hernandez.

"We don't need DOJ to prosecute 'hate speech,'" insisted Mike Cernovich. "Pam Bondi really isn't ready for this moment. Not to mention the Epstein files nonsense.

We need CRIMINAL ACTS by ANTIFA prosecuted.

And RICO.

Plenty of laws on the books for ACTS, not words.

Just needs to happen."

Conservatives renew demands for Bondi's resignation over 'hate speech' remarks

"I told you several times, she is a retard," posted Retard Finder.

justthenews.com

 

[Tall Timbers]

I agree with the idea that the Federal govmint needs to respect our Constitutional Rights, but I'm not on the bandwagon calling for Bondi to resign. She just needs a refresher course on our 1st Amendment. And it would be nice if we started seeing arrests and prosecutions for the numerous crimes committed by politicians, employees, and appointees during the last several years.

 

[dwb]

She also mentioned swatting which I think should be illegal. It's just a matter of time before someone dies because of this.

 

[Hol]

She doesn’t seem to be able to get much done. I’ve worked with people and had bosses like that.

My boss before I retired was the opposite. He got so much done that he was recognized on a national level.

There’s an old saying, ‘those who can do, and those who can’t teach,’ or in her case ‘those who can’t go on news shows to talk.’

 

[dwb]

Below is a quote from Revolver News and pretty much sums up how I feel about the speech issue. Also, threatening violence is only going to prompt others to follow thru.

Revolver has always defended free speech, even the ugly kind. But free speech isn’t a shield from consequences. Schools, employers, and communities have every right to decide if they want to be associated with someone’s words.

 

[Hol]

Revolver has always defended free speech, even the ugly kind. But free speech isn’t a shield from consequences. Schools, employers, and communities have every right to decide if they want to be associated with someone’s words.

Amen

“Anyone who encourages violence by justifying violence deserves to be fired.
People like Matthew Dowd and Karen Attiah don’t want us assassinated because we are something less than human.

They dehumanize us so people will think it is ok if someone does assassinate us.“ John Nolte

Nolte: Longtime WaPo Columnist Karen Attiah Fired After Justifying Charlie Kirk Assassination

Karen Attiah, a columnist for eleven years at the far-left Washington Post, says she was fired over the weekend.

www.breitbart.com

 

[Margery]

This is how it begins. The erosion of liberties. I hope you quickly reverse it.

It always arrives with a lot of good reasons. It ends up a tool in the wrong hands to be used against the very people it claims to protect.

Here is a short history of how it happened in Canada starting in the late 60's, coming into law under Trudeau the First, and enshrined again under Trudeau the Second. The history of Section 13, the controversial hate speech law the Liberals just revived

Sadly along the way our most conservative leader Stephen Harper didn't kill that sucker dead, as seen here:
It was Canada’s first online culture war, and it ended in total victory for the nay side, via a Conservative MP’s private member’s bill to repeal it. As a minority government in 2008, the Conservative Party under Stephen Harper had intervened to defend Section 13, arguing that “a little bit of chilling” around the hateful fringes of public discourse was “tolerable.” But as a majority in 2014, and with the support of one lonely Liberal MP, the 2012 vote to repeal was as clear as public opinion. Section 13 was gone, and the general mood was good riddance. Better no law than bad law.

So eventually he did try to get it out of our laws but then it was still going thru the courts, and ended up becoming law via case law. Precedent was set as the National Post explains.

"So when Parliament finally officially repealed Section 13 in 2014, a year or so after the Whatcott decision, it was only really putting it to bed. For a dead law, Section 13 still had remarkable vitality. It was a strange situation that inspired much colourful description.

The National Post reported at the time, for example, citing Monty Python: “Like the Norwegian Blue parrot, Section 13 is just resting. Like the Black Knight, its repeal by Parliament is just a flesh wound. Though it has been hoisted on the cross, its supporters may still, like Brian, always look on the bright side of life. Section 13 might be doomed, but it is good law. So sayeth the courts.”

Today, perhaps inevitably, Section 13 is being reborn to new life, as part of the Liberal federal government’s online harms legislation. The war may be over, but the circus continues."

Unfortunately under Trudeau the law roared back into action as the govt used it again and again to shut down opposition voices.

Now instead of shutting down the anti semites (how it began in the 60s) it is used to protect the anti semites and shut down any common sense asking why the anti semites are a protected class while anyone pointing out their anti semitism is guilty of hate speech.

Definitely a 2 edged sword.