Hate speech isn’t a legal category in the United States, no matter how many politicians pretend otherwise. The Supreme Court has been clear: the First Amendment protects even the ugliest speech. In 2017s Matal v. Tam, the Court unanimously said theres no hate speech exception to free speech. The government can’t punish or censor someone just because of their viewpoint.
So when Attorney General Pam Bondi vows to crack down on hate speech after Charlie Kirks assassination, she’s not talking about law. She’s talking about rewriting constitutional precedent by fiat. Thats not how it works. The Court set the standard back in 1969 with Brandenburg v. Ohio: speech is only unprotected if its both intended to incite imminent lawless action and likely to actually cause it. Thats a deliberately high bar.
Which means I hate Charlie Kirk – no matter how venomously shouted – is still protected. Its an opinion, not an instruction to attack. The same goes for hating politicians, celebrities, or anyone else. The Court has even protected the Westboro Baptist Churchs revolting funeral protests under this logic. As Chief Justice Roberts put it in Snyder v. Phelps: we protect even hurtful speech on public issues, because punishing it would stifle debate.
The line only gets crossed with direct threats, face-to-face intimidation, or incitement of immediate violence. Thats it. Hate crimes are acts, not opinions. Tyler Robinson allegedly murdered Charlie Kirk. Thats a crime. Saying you hate Kirk isn’t.
Bondis effort to carve out a hate speech category ignores fifty years of Supreme Court rulings. Free speech doesn’t exist to protect the popular or the polite. It exists to protect freedom for the thought that we hate. And until the Court says otherwise, even the worst opinions are still protected speech.