A sitting attorney general publicly claimed a 'hate speech' exception to the First Amendment and threatened enforcement, then suggested using the civil rights division against businesses that won’t print political‑event signs. This signals an attempt to recast tragedy‑driven outrage into a government speech code and compelled‑speech regime. Even partial walk‑backs leave a chilling signal about enforcement priorities.
— If executive officials normalize a non‑existent hate‑speech exception and compelled speech, it reshapes U.S. free‑speech doctrine in practice and invites wider, partisan use of civil‑rights tools against political dissent.
Aporia
2025.09.26
60% relevant
By noting Attorney General Pam Bondi’s talk of going after 'hate speech,' the article reflects the trend of officials gesturing toward a non‑existent U.S. hate‑speech exception to justify punitive action, aligning with this idea’s warning about doctrinal drift.
Ross Barkan
2025.09.18
85% relevant
The article quotes Attorney General Pam Bondi promising to 'come after those who engage in hate speech' after the Kirk assassination, directly echoing the captured idea that a sitting AG is asserting a non‑existent 'hate speech' exception and signaling enforcement based on viewpoint.
Matthew Yglesias
2025.09.18
100% relevant
Pam Bondi’s remarks on Katie Miller’s podcast ('we will absolutely target you') and her separate vow to prosecute printers that decline Charlie Kirk vigil signs.