R.A.V vs St. Paul displays Bondi's incompetence.

[berg80]

Pam said.........."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."

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/20/opinion/jimmy-kimmel-free-speech.html

But..........

The SC ruled that a city's hate speech ordinance violated the 1st A because it discriminated on the basis of the content of the speech.

Google Search

From the Times article, link already provided.........

Cottle: So I want to dig into the free speech of it all, both legally and then culturally, especially with all the high-profile firings and other punishments we’ve seen.

But let’s start with the law and the Justice Department’s take on this situation. David, we heard Attorney General Pam Bondi talking about who got some backlash this week for her extremely creative interpretation of the First Amendment. What are your thoughts on the head of the D.O.J. going after free speech?

David French: So Michelle, this was very interesting and very indicative of this moment in American history. Because you had Pam Bondi come out and say there’s free speech and then there’s hate speech, which, spoiler alert, that right there is wrong. That right there is wrong.

Cottle: Oopsie.

French: For decades and decades, it has been very clear that you cannot ban or punish speech because you have deemed its content hateful. This goes back to a case called R.A.V. v. St. Paul. There are strong echoes of that and of cases decades before. So right there, she was completely wrong.

Not that it comes as a surprise Bondi is ignorant of the laws she has sworn to uphold. Or that she sees her role as defending the policies of the trump government, not the Constitution. After all, it's the reason she was appointed to be Don's AG............not the country's AG.

 

[Darkwind]

Something I happen to agree with the left on.

There is hate speech. However, the left want to use it as a pogrom against Conservatives.

Conservatives just call you clowns out on it.

 

[berg80]

Something I happen to agree with the left on.

There is hate speech. However, the left want to use it as a pogrom against Conservatives.

Conservatives just call you clowns out on it.

So Donald Trump, who’s her actual boss, is asked about this hate speech issue by ABC’s Jonathan Karl. And he says, in response to Karl, that Bondi would, quote, “probably go after people like you” — Jonathan Karl of ABC — because “you have a lot of hate in your heart.” And then he brags about collecting a settlement from ABC. This gets more ominous as the moments tick by, for a form of hate speech.

And so, did you have the same reaction across the political spectrum against Donald Trump when he raises this hate speech issue? No. No. Because in the MAGA-verse, there’s a permission structure for going after an underling who is deemed to have failed Trump. There’s not the same permission structure for going after Trump.

 

[Oddball]

Pam said.........."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."

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/20/opinion/jimmy-kimmel-free-speech.html

But..........

The SC ruled that a city's hate speech ordinance violated the 1st A because it discriminated on the basis of the content of the speech.

Google Search

From the Times article, link already provided.........

Cottle: So I want to dig into the free speech of it all, both legally and then culturally, especially with all the high-profile firings and other punishments we’ve seen.

But let’s start with the law and the Justice Department’s take on this situation. David, we heard Attorney General Pam Bondi talking about who got some backlash this week for her extremely creative interpretation of the First Amendment. What are your thoughts on the head of the D.O.J. going after free speech?

David French: So Michelle, this was very interesting and very indicative of this moment in American history. Because you had Pam Bondi come out and say there’s free speech and then there’s hate speech, which, spoiler alert, that right there is wrong. That right there is wrong.

Cottle: Oopsie.

French: For decades and decades, it has been very clear that you cannot ban or punish speech because you have deemed its content hateful. This goes back to a case called R.A.V. v. St. Paul. There are strong echoes of that and of cases decades before. So right there, she was completely wrong.

Not that it comes as a surprise Bondi is ignorant of the laws she has sworn to uphold. Or that she sees her role as defending the policies of the trump government, not the Constitution. After all, it's the reason she was appointed to be Don's AG............not the country's AG.

Yet another indication that Blondi is the wrong person for the job.

Also another circumstance which smokes out the dizzying hypocrisy of the loony left.

 

[Oddball]

Something I happen to agree with the left on.

There is hate speech. However, the left want to use it as a pogrom against Conservatives.

Conservatives just call you clowns out on it.

1) There is no "hate speech".

2) The left goes absolutely apoplectic when they can't measure up, with the same yardstick they use for everyone else.

3) Time to seize the opportunity to use their own objections against them, and their cynical decades-long "hate speech" jihad.

 

[Rogue AI]

Liberals defending their hypocrisy? What a novel concept. They created this silliness and then whine when it's used against them. Pathetic.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Something I happen to agree with the left on.

There is hate speech. However, the left want to use it as a pogrom against Conservatives.

Conservatives just call you clowns out on it.

And Trump likewise has the same ignorance and contempt for the law.

Of course, this isn’t about ‘hate speech,’ it’s about the fascist Trump regime’s efforts to silence political opposition in violation of the First Amendment.

 

[berg80]

Liberals defending their hypocrisy? What a novel concept. They created this silliness and then whine when it's used against them. Pathetic.

What an odd response to the blonde sock puppet's overt ignorance of the law.

 

[Rogue AI]

What an odd response to the blonde sock puppet's overt ignorance of the law.

Say what you mean, I have no idea what you are implying. You loons created the idea of 'hate speech' and designed punishments to protect only your side. Now that someone has turned the tables you whine like a little *****. Try harder.

 

[berg80]

Say what you mean, I have no idea what you are implying. You loons created the idea of 'hate speech' and designed punishments to protect only your side. Now that someone has turned the tables you whine like a little *****. Try harder.

I'm not implying anything. I'm stating her comments about free speech and hate speech show she is ignorant about the precedent established by R.A.V. v. St. Paul.

 

[Rogue AI]

I'm not implying anything. I'm stating her comments about free speech and hate speech show she is ignorant about the precedent established by R.A.V. v. St. Paul.

The federal government is nor seeking municipal ordinances. Try harder.

 

[berg80]

The federal government is nor seeking municipal ordinances. Try harder.

If you had read the OP you wouldn't have embarrassed yourself by being ignorant of the nationwide precedent established by the SC. Try harder.

The SC ruled that a city's hate speech ordinance violated the 1st A because it discriminated on the basis of the content of the speech.
Google Search

 

[Rogue AI]

If you had read the OP you wouldn't have embarrassed yourself by being ignorant of the nationwide precedent established by the SC.

The SC ruled that a city's hate speech ordinance violated the 1st A because it discriminated on the basis of the content of the speech.
Google Search

Again, the federal government is not making a city ordinance. That case has no bearing on what you are talking about. What exactly are you accusing Bondi of doing? I see no evidence that anything at all was done.

 

[berg80]

Again, the federal government is not making a city ordinance. That case has no bearing on what you are talking about. What exactly are you accusing Bondi of doing? I see no evidence that anything at all was done.

Hopefully, you agree the AG should be aware of the laws of the land and of legal precedents established by the SC. Pam's comment regarding "free speech" and "hate speech" shows she is unaware of the law regarding the latter settled by the ruling in R.A.V. v. St. Paul.

I can't make it any more simple for you to understand than that.