The Spire

Tucker Scott ’26

Staff Writer

Pam Bondi has been an utter disaster as Attorney General. She has been more focused on setting herself up for a 2028 run by pandering than actually doing good policy. In fact a huge controversy that the Trump administration is dealing with, the Epstein Files, was caused almost exclusively by Bondi’s bungling of the entire thing. She couldn’t even get an indictment against the man who on camera threw a sandwich at ICE agents. Then last week she was on Fox News talking about hate speech and how it should be made illegal. Um, no. 

Now listen, are people celebrating Charlie Kirk’s death evil and terrible? 100%. But does that mean that the government, especially the federal government has any right to regulate that? Absolutely not.

The fundamental principle of our government is that I have the right to do something you disagree with. A Christian baker has the right to deny service to a gay couple if he so chooses. And then according to free market principles the gay couple will go to another cake shop who wants to bake their cake. Simple as that. You can disagree with the gay baker all you want, as is your right in this amazing country. But so long as it is not hurting anyone, you can not be forced to do anything you don’t want to

Even the word assumes “hate speech” assumes there is some separate category. No, there is speech that is hateful but hate speech does not exist. Because to one person saying the sky is blue could be considered hate speech towards people who believe the sky is really orange.

Now that’s not to say there aren’t hateful people who use hateful language. Nazis, the black panthers, ANTIFA, all these groups are hateful and have hateful ideologies. But so long as those words don’t cross into violent action they have the right to say whatever they believe, no matter how evil they may be.

That’s not to say there should be no consequences. However the consequences should come in the social and economic spheres, they should not come from the government. All the people who are celebrating Charlie Kirk’s assassination should be fired, unless of course the company agrees with the position. However the government should have no say in who stays and who goes. And if the company decides to keep that person on then the company will have to deal with the consequences of people not wanting to shop with them.

I do not have a right to a job. Because that right is an imposition on another and our government is based on the fundamental principle of freedom from not right to. If I come into work and say we should kill all the Italians well then it is perfectly within a company’s right to fire me. Why? Because that is the natural social consequence of my action. That is not the same as the government coming in and forcing the company to fire me.

The reason this is different than say when Obama’s IRS was shutting down conservative 501C3’s was because in the Kirk example the consequences were social in nature, not governmental. No matter who is president you would see the same consequences. It’s wrong because the government has no right in determining what speech is acceptable. And the thought that there are individuals in both parties that think the government not only can but should limit speech is terrifying. Thankfully that isn’t the case and seems to be another classic Bondi Blunder. 

The whole problem with cancel culture is not that there were social consequences, but instead that the overturn window was shut so tight that even saying basic things like maybe we shouldn’t give 2nd graders graphic gay pornography was enough to get you canceled. Obviously there is an overturn window on accepted speech, however the government has no role in defining where that line is. Politicians come and go but our social fabric is forever.

So when you’ve got the Attorney General of the United States, no matter the party, discussing violations of the First Amendment color me incredibly skeptical. Hate speech and discussing harm, those are standards and language used by the left, not the right. Couple this with all her attempts to virtue signal to the base that undermine not just the Trump administration, but the governments credibility then frankly put you need to go

It’s not like she’s well liked in the administration either. Kash Patel “allegedly” threatened to quit over Bondi’s debacle regarding the Epstein issue. Tulsi Gabbard has reportedly had a lot of problems. At this point I wonder if it would have been better to keep Matt Gaetz on as Attorney General. So when you’ve got an attorney general who is focused not on upholding the law of the nation but pandering to their base, regardless of party, that person needs to be let go.

Featured image courtesy of Newsweek Digital LLC