https://www.newsweek.com/charlie-kirks-own-words-hate-speech-used-against-pam-bondi-2130647
Mehdi Hasan, who formerly hosted a show on MSNBC, responded to comments by Bondi with a screenshot of an X post by Kirk, in which the conservative posted, "Hate speech does not exist legally in America. There's ugly speech. There's gross speech. There's evil speech. And ALL of it is protected by the First Amendment. Keep America free."
“The First Amendment absolutely protects speech,” Cruz said Tuesday at POLITICO’s AI & Tech Summit in Washington. “It absolutely protects hate speech. It protects vile speech. It protects horrible speech. What does that mean? It means you cannot be prosecuted for speech, even if it is evil and bigoted and wrong.”
Garnel IronheartSeptember 17, 2025 at 8:20 PM
Trump is doing exactly what he claims was done against him. Yes, absolutely true.
And if you supported it when it was being done against him, you're a hypocrite for opposing it now.
The only relevant issue is whether you approve Trump's violation of the law not whether he should be permitted to seek revenge against imagined mistreatment. We should cancel future elections because he claims he was unfairly defeated! We should end impeachment because he claims the charges against him were phony. We should cancel all prosecution for fraud and rape because he claims he was wrongly convicted ?! Et cetra et cetra
Igros Moshe (YD 1:140): This that you explained that Suffering from Love (Berachos 5a) - that Rashi explains that G d afflicts a person even though he hasn’t done any sin in order to increase his reward - is similar to the issue of a father hitting his son even though he has completed the his required task. The father does it in order to increase the child’s fear and respect for him . Even though the son would fulfill the father’s command anyway he gets additional reward. This is a valid explanation…. However it is necessary to add that G d does not give Suffering from Love to someone who hasn’t sinned at all. … Nevertheless he is chastised in the same way as the son who has completed his task. This is to increase his reward more than his actual merits…. Nevertheless Rashi’s view is that the suffering serves no purpose for the tzadik except to increase his reward.
Ramban (Shaar HaGemul #3): A person who becomes afflicted with suffering should examine himself for sin. If he hadn’t done a sin which justifies the suffering he should assume that it comes from neglecting a positive commandment. But if he is completely righteous and has not sinned nor neglected positive commandments than the suffering is the result of yesurim shel ahava which are to give him extra reward in the World to Come. The suffering of love comes to purify a person from sins done accidentally and from lack of caution to avoid sins. Thus he has tasted of accidentally sinning and furthermore every improper deed dirties his soul. Even though these accidental sins are not punished in Gehinom, but he still needs to be purified from them to reach the proper level for the World to Come. Therefore G d has mercy on people who have accidentally sinned and allows them to atone by bring sacrifices in the Temple. When there is no Temple He sends suffering to purify the soul for the World to Come…. Thus even suffering of love is also to purify a person from sin.
Sefer HaIkkarim (4:13): … … 4) Sometimes the tzadik experiences bad because it is beneficial for him. This is called Suffering of Love. It is also called a nisayon (test). There are three aspects of Suffering of Love. a) Suffering that erases the slightest remnant of sins that are too minor to be atoned for in a prescribed manner or that he is unaware of what he had done. b) Sometimes there is not the slightest sin but the suffering is entirely to test the tzadik whether he serves G d entirely from love…c) Sometimes there is absolutely no sin and there is no need to test the tzadik but it is entirely to increase the reward in the World to Come - such as Avraham’s sacrifice of Yitzchok.
Rambam (Moreh Nevuchim 3:17): The majority of our Sages agree that there is no death or suffering without sin… A person is rewarded according to all the good deeds that he has done even if he wasn’t commanded by the prophet to do them. He is also punished for all the bad things he did, even if he wasn’t forbidden by the prophet. This is true however for those things that his intellect would indicate that they were good or bad.…In the words of our Sages there is something additional which is not found written in the Torah. Some of them talk about yesurim shel ahava which is suffering which occurs even without sin - in order to increase reward. This is also a concept found amongst some Muslims. However there is no verse in the Torah which expresses this idea.
Maharal (Derech Chaim 4:16): It is difficult to understand what our sages meant by saying that “it is not in our hands to understand the suffering of the righteous.” Of course we understand why the righteous suffer because it is known that there is no such thing as a perfect tzadik who has never sinned. Apparently it is referring to the suffering that the righteous get even when it is not the result of sin as is mentioned in Berachos(5a). Even though this is “suffering of love,” nevertheless the sages said that we don’t understand it. In other words there are tzadikim who don’t want this suffering as we find in Berachos(5b) that R’ Yochanon did not want his suffering or the reward for the suffering. From this we see the suffering was difficult for the tzadikim even though they were entirely from G d’s love in order to increase the reward the tzadik would receive in the World to Come. Therefore he said that it is not in our hands to understand either the tranquility of the wicked - because even Moshe did not understand this and we don’t understand the suffering of the righteous… because the tzadikim who rejected “suffering of love”…. The expression “it is not in our hands” - means that we are forced to accept it even if it is not to our good. In other words it is not according to what we want and it is against our will…
Berachos (5a): If a person notices that bad things are happening to him, he should examine his deeds as it says(Eicha 3:40).: Let us search and examine our ways and thereby return to G d. If he examined his deeds yet finds nothing to justify his suffering, he should assume his suffering to neglect of Torah study…. If the assumption is not correct then he should know for a certainty that his suffering is from G d’s love as it says(Mishlei 3:12): Whomever G d loves He chastises.
Rashi (Berachos 5a) Yissurim shel ahava G-d causes suffering in this world even if the person did not sin in order to increase his reward that he will receive in the World to Come which is greater than what he deserves based entirely on merit for good deeds.
Campaigns to alert employers to contentious posts are posing new challenges for bosses; ‘This is very different’ from past political controversies at work
The Attorney General seems to think ‘hate speech’ is illegal. Charlie Kirk knew better.
A statement I heard from Rav Diskind, the son in law of Rav Yakov, summarizes my brother very well. He said: ”Our Sages have said that Yiftach in his generation is as Shmuel was in his generation. But woe is it to the person who knew Shmuel.” He obviously wasn’t saying that Yiftach in his time as the head of the Sanhedrin was not to be disrespected since he clearly was not as great as Shmuel. Nor was he saying Yiftach was not as authoritative as Shmuel because he was not as great a Talmid chachom as we see that he sacrificed his daughter. He was saying a more personal point. While we need to respect the contemporary leaders there is no mitzva to be stupid and ignore their short comings. Rav Moshe writes in the Igros Moshe that there are no gedolim today, including himself, that you can’t disagree with what they say. My brother Dovid had the opportunity to get to know the views of the previous generation personally and therefore could not accept blindly the deviations of their successors and in fact protested against the deviations. The family found a large collection of letters he received from Rav Moshe Feinstein written in response to his many questions. My brother knew what the previous gedolim thought and why on a wide range of topics. The haskomas he received clear attest that he understood the views of the gedolim of previous generations. He had heard their responses directly orally or in correspondence. My brother was thus clearly someone who had known Shmuel.
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5506688-trump-administration-charlie-kirk
The White House is using the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk as a basis to go after left-wing groups and threaten crackdowns on certain types of rhetoric, drawing skepticism from even some on the right.
Vice President Vance on Monday urged the public to report anyone they saw celebrating Kirk’s murder, comments that appeared at odds with his previous criticism of Europe for suppressing free speech.
“The murder of Charlie Kirk was a tragedy. He was on a campus doing what he had done many times before, engaging in debate with students, welcoming them to change his views,” said Aaron Terr, director of public advocacy at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.
“Unfortunately the administration’s response has been disappointing and deeply chilling,” Terr added. “They have not sought to reaffirm the values of free speech, but are instead threatening to undermine them further by cracking down on Americans for what they say about Charlie Kirk or his killing.”
The threats to punish rhetoric and ideologies out of step with the administration’s policies and messaging are part of a broader trend during Trump’s second term.
https://www.thefp.com/p/pam-bondi-vs-the-first-amendment-free-speech-charlie-kirk
At last, something we can all agree on: The attorney general has no idea what she’s talking about.
In an interview that aired on Monday, our attorney general said that the federal government would crack down on “hate speech” in the wake of Charlie Kirk’s assassination last week.
Attorney General Pam Bondi on Tuesday started trying to walk back her embrace of a “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment, as well as an equally foolish “businesses cannot discriminate” stance against private rights of conscience.
This plays right into lefty charges that the right is rushing to suppress legal dissent in the wake of the horrific Charlie Kirk assassination.
Here’s Charlie Kirk, posting in May 2024: “Hate speech does not exist legally in America. There’s ugly speech. There’s gross speech. There’s evil speech. And ALL of it is protected by the First Amendment.”
That nicely sums up the American position going back at least to Thomas Jefferson (though Constitution-haters like Woodrow Wilson saw things differently): We have no “free speech” right if the government pushing words it deems “hateful.”
Hence Bondi’s reversal to arguing only that “speech that crosses the line into threats of violence is NOT protected by the First Amendment” and free speech “does NOT and will NEVER protect violence.” Right, and irrelevant.
