Pam Bondi Is Wrong About Free Speech

[gatomontes99]

I heard hints of this in the days after Kirk passed. This is the wrong reaction.

Speech is speech. It does not matter what the adjective is. We cannot become Britain and start imprisoning people for words. If we do that than we are no different than the left.

 

 

[Shady]

I completely agree with you.  Unless someone is specifically calling for violence against another person, all speech is free speech.

Edited September 16, 2025 by Shady

[WestCanMan]

4 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

I heard hints of this in the days after Kirk passed. This is the wrong reaction.

Speech is speech. It does not matter what the adjective is. We cannot become Britain and start imprisoning people for words. If we do that than we are no different than the left.

Not really.

Like with everything else, free speech is on a spectrum.

At the one end is "you can scream at people that they should be committing murder against another group for racial reasons and that is fine", at the other end is "saying words like 'mother' can be offensive to some, so it is a crime to say it now".  

Both ends of the spectrum are almost equally ridiculous. 

Britain is at the extreme end, where "telling the truth about islam is a crime, punishable by imprisonment", and what Bondi is saying that falls well short of that Brit-level ret4rdation.

Hate speech which will result in violent crime is the same type of crime as sedition. 

It's illegal to plot an attack on the gov't for obvious reasons, and it should be illegal to incite mass-murder. 

If some Hamas or islamic state terrorists are caught recruiting people to commit a mass-murder should they go to jail? Should they get the death penalty? Life without parole? Out on bail in 24 hrs, then get parole? 

[West]

Shes clarified

 

 

[CdnFox]

40 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

I heard hints of this in the days after Kirk passed. This is the wrong reaction.

Speech is speech. It does not matter what the adjective is. We cannot become Britain and start imprisoning people for words. If we do that than we are no different than the left.

 

 

Well i would argue that there is a line.  Like most rights, eventually they butt up against other rights and have to have limits 

It's free speech to say i don't approve of Christians. It's hate speech to say "it's ok to kill christians if they say things you don't like". 

One is expressing an opinion, the other is advocating and possibly encouraging illegal acts that impact the rights of others. 

I think the bar has to be extremely high but I think it's fair to say that if you are actually promoting illegal activities then it's gone too far

[gatomontes99]

8 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Well i would argue that there is a line.  Like most rights, eventually they butt up against other rights and have to have limits 

It's free speech to say i don't approve of Christians. It's hate speech to say "it's ok to kill christians if they say things you don't like". 

One is expressing an opinion, the other is advocating and possibly encouraging illegal acts that impact the rights of others. 

I think the bar has to be extremely high but I think it's fair to say that if you are actually promoting illegal activities then it's gone too far

Our SCOTUS has said that free speech ends when you call for violence. So, calling conservatives fascists and nazis is free speech unless they expressly or strongly imply violence. 

I agree with SCOTUS.

[West]

51 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

I heard hints of this in the days after Kirk passed. This is the wrong reaction.

Speech is speech. It does not matter what the adjective is. We cannot become Britain and start imprisoning people for words. If we do that than we are no different than the left.

 

 

Speech in and of itself should not be criminalized BUT if you say violent things then go out and commit something that is a crime, such as murdering someone, this could prove your INTENT.

[West]

5 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

Our SCOTUS has said that free speech ends when you call for violence. So, calling conservatives fascists and nazis is free speech unless they expressly or strongly imply violence. 

I agree with SCOTUS.

What about if hypothetically they call someone a "fascist" then fund a group called "Antifa" who go around and physically assault people who you call fascists?

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, gatomontes99 said:

Our SCOTUS has said that free speech ends when you call for violence. So, calling conservatives fascists and nazis is free speech unless they expressly or strongly imply violence. 

I agree with SCOTUS.

Sure, I think in general we all agree with that. God knows he's been called Nazi often enough

But I would argue there's a point where it begins to cross a line. Calling a person a Nazi is one thing. Saying that a person is a Nazi who must be opposed it's starting to get a little bit close to a dangerous line and we hear that very often. Saying someone is a Nazi who must be opposed at any cost..... At any cost? Do you see where now we're into an area where it could very well be argued that the person is advocating violence and hatred

I think as soon as you start saying somebody else is evil or that we shouldn't tolerate them or that they must be silenced or the like you are stepping over a line from having an opinion about somebody you strongly suggesting that person must be eradicated.

There's a story out of old England about henry the second.  The archbisiop of canterbury was making trouble for him and in frustration he yelled out "who will rid me of this turbulent priest?!?!" 

He did not mean for it to be an order, but  his knights took it to be his wish and ran off and killed the guy. 

Even tho he didn't DIRECTLY tell anyone to ACTUALLY 'rid him' of the priest, it's been held up as an example of needing to be very careful of what you say because it's easy for words that suggest someone should be 'gone' to be misinterpreted.

[Michael Hardner]

"leftism" likely means "the Democratic Party" in this context.

Seems a lot harder than saying "a Nazi must be opposed"...


 

[Michael Hardner]

Hey, here's another one !
 

 

[Michael Hardner]

Another one... from West... this time calling for judges to be eradicated from the bench... I assume he doesn't mean k1lled but still harder than saying "we must oppose them"
 

 

[Michael Hardner]

If you Google the site - "eradicated" comes into use in only a few select instances:

-viruses

-genocide

-eliminating the mindset of the Democratic and/or Liberal party, ie. thought control

This is only anecdotal evidence, but IF we go in for that kind of method for assessing truth (like, for example, citing a single crime here or there as proof that people are undesirables) then the site would seem to say that the Democrat and/or Liberal haters are indeed more 'liberal' with use of that word.

And, my point: it's a lot stronger than the word 'oppose'.

My two cents on that.

[robosmith]

24 minutes ago, West said:

What about if hypothetically they call someone a "fascist" then fund a group called "Antifa" who go around and physically assault people who you call fascists?

What if you LIE about what happens and use that LIE to justify ATTACKING ANTIFA?

[West]

16 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

If you Google the site - "eradicated" comes into use in only a few select instances:

-viruses

-genocide

-eliminating the mindset of the Democratic and/or Liberal party, ie. thought control

This is only anecdotal evidence, but IF we go in for that kind of method for assessing truth (like, for example, citing a single crime here or there as proof that people are undesirables) then the site would seem to say that the Democrat and/or Liberal haters are indeed more 'liberal' with use of that word.

And, my point: it's a lot stronger than the word 'oppose'.

My two cents on that.

Actually the definition is to "rid of" and I stand by my assertion that folks who abuse the bench for political purposes should be removed. 

In a judicial context:

To "eradicate from the bench"

a judge (specifically a federal judge) implies removing them from their judicial role. 

This process is called impeachment, and it involves the House of Representatives bringing articles of impeachment and the Senate holding a trial and voting on conviction. 

Edited September 16, 2025 by West

[LinkSoul60]

I fully understand why she's saying this, but unclear who this applies to....   

Trump has spent years labelling his political opponents as fascists, referring to past administrations intelligence community as Nazi Germany, and just last year called the Biden administration a Gaestpo administration.  Not to be outdone by himself he mused about Liz Cheney being fired upon, and then in maybe his best attempt at comedy in talking about Paul Pelosi said “How’s Nancy Pelosi’s husband doing, anybody know?” Trump said at one point. “And she’s against building a wall at our border, even though she has a wall around her house — which obviously didn’t do a very good job.”

Is any of that hate speech, or just all good fun?

[Michael Hardner]

6 minutes ago, West said:

 

To "eradicate from the bench"

 

Your defense is plausible.

But it's still harder than "opposed".

The problem with slicing something as amorphous as language into rules is that you create "principles".  And these are a lot more easily followed by non-populists than populists, in my experience.  You might be able to settle on some principles, possibly using those which are already established... but that's not how populism works.

[West]

2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Your defense is plausible.

But it's still harder than "opposed".

The problem with slicing something as amorphous as language into rules is that you create "principles".  And these are a lot more easily followed by non-populists than populists, in my experience.  You might be able to settle on some principles, possibly using those which are already established... but that's not how populism works.

No the use of the word eradicate is used in its proper context to signal the removal of a judge. 

[Michael Hardner]

2 minutes ago, West said:

No the use of the word eradicate is used in its proper context to signal the removal of a judge. 

I already said it's "plausible"... I wouldn't say it's a common use when referred to a person in a role, such as a judge.

My two cents.

[West]

5 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I already said it's "plausible"... I wouldn't say it's a common use when referred to a person in a role, such as a judge.

My two cents.

I've heard it many times in common usage. Even common enough that I copied and pasted the response from Google  But nice try. 

You are right it is harder than opposed because there should be no space to abuse the bench to target political adversaries. 

Edited September 16, 2025 by West

[Michael Hardner]

6 minutes ago, West said:

I've heard it many times in common usage. Even common enough that I copied and pasted the response from Google  But nice try. 

You've heard "judge needs to be eradicated from the bench" ?

 

Ok then.... we're talking about common usage so my mileage may vary.  Interesting though...

 

https://www.google.com/search?q="judge+needs+to+be+eradicated"&oq="judge+needs+to+be+eradicated"&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOdIBCDU2MThqMGo0qAIAsAIB&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Edited September 16, 2025 by Michael Hardner

[Deluge]

56 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

"leftism" likely means "the Democratic Party" in this context.

Seems a lot harder than saying "a Nazi must be opposed"...


 

"leftism" and the democrat party are synonymous. 

[West]

10 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

You've heard "judge needs to be eradicated from the bench" ?

 

Ok then.... we're talking about common usage so my mileage may vary.  Interesting though...

 

https://www.google.com/search?q="judge+needs+to+be+eradicated"&oq="judge+needs+to+be+eradicated"&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOdIBCDU2MThqMGo0qAIAsAIB&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/defending-the-jury/eradicating-the-bench-trial/E584B1D51691AA3EB84692B101951602

Looks like Cambridge is doing hate speech against trial judges 

[CdnFox]

24 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I already said it's "plausible"... I wouldn't say it's a common use when referred to a person in a role, such as a judge.

My two cents.

You've given your two cents on it so many times now that we owe you 48 cents in change. hold on... (starts rummaging through the sofa cushions....)

[LinkSoul60]

10 minutes ago, West said:

https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/defending-the-jury/eradicating-the-bench-trial/E584B1D51691AA3EB84692B101951602

Looks like Cambridge is doing hate speech against trial judges 

You probably want to get someone to help you interpret what you linked and said.

The article is purely about trial law and eliminating bench trials, not judges. 

Good try though.... 😂