Some people have taken to social media to celebrate Charlie Kirk’s death. Instead of expressing condolences, many mocked or applauded the tragedy.
The celebrations have drawn widespread outrage from conservatives who pointed out that, while such speech may be reprehensible, it remains protected under the First Amendment.
The debate intensified after Attorney General Pam Bondi made controversial remarks on a Monday podcast, stating that the Justice Department would “absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech.”
Bondi’s comments drew immediate criticism from conservative commentators, many of whom warned about the dangers of allowing the government to police speech.
Her statement was met with backlash across the right, with critics calling for her immediate removal.
Prominent conservative voices argued that the term “hate speech” is vague and dangerous when weaponized by the government, especially under future administrations.
They warned that such precedent could be used to silence political dissent and punish speech that is unpopular but constitutionally protected.
Daily Wire host Matt Walsh was among those who sharply criticized Bondi’s comments.
Walsh noted that the free market and social pressure had already produced consequences for individuals who publicly celebrated Kirk’s death, including professors and public school teachers who faced disciplinary action or termination from their institutions.
Walsh emphasized that these outcomes occurred without government intervention, and he argued that this is the appropriate way to handle such incidents.
He stated, “There should be social consequences for people who openly celebrate the murder of an innocent man.”
“But there obviously shouldn’t be any legal repercussions for ‘hate speech,’ which is not even a valid or coherent concept. There is no law against saying hateful things, and there shouldn’t be.”
Conservative commentators warned that granting the federal government authority to police speech would set a dangerous precedent.
Critics noted that throughout recent history, crises such as 9/11, COVID-19 and January 6 have been used by government authorities to justify restrictions on civil liberties.
They cautioned that Kirk’s assassination could become another justification for government overreach.
Journalist Glenn Greenwald also weighed in, offering a fierce critique of Bondi’s remarks.
He argued that her comments reflected a fundamental misunderstanding of the law. “There’s only one law and Constitution for everyone,” Greenwald stated.
He accused Bondi of confusing terms and failing to admit error.
Bondi attempted to clarify her remarks in a Tuesday morning statement on X.
She wrote, “Hate speech that crosses the line into threats of violence is NOT protected by the First Amendment. It’s a crime. For far too long, we’ve watched the radical left normalize threats, call for assassinations, and cheer on political violence. That era is over.”
She continued, “Free speech protects ideas, debate, even dissent but it does NOT and will NEVER protect violence. It is clear this violent rhetoric is designed to silence others from voicing conservative ideals. We will never be silenced. Not for our families, not for our freedoms, and never for Charlie. His legacy will not be erased by fear or intimidation.”
Bondi’s clarification failed to calm critics, who argued that she was still conflating protected speech with unprotected “true threats” or incitement to violence.
Critics stressed that while actual threats of violence are crimes, “hate speech” itself is not prosecutable under American law.
Former Fox News host Megyn Kelly took a more conciliatory tone in her response.
She acknowledged that Bondi’s words were poorly chosen but suggested that the attorney general likely intended to refer to individuals actively conspiring to commit violence.
“Hate speech is not prosecutable in America (which is good). Pam Bondi knows this,” Kelly wrote.
“I am guessing, given the statements by Stephen Miller yesterday about targeting violent cells, she means those who actually plan violence, which would not be about the speech but the conspiracy.”
