|
If
Bondi hadn’t described this as “hate speech,” her post would’ve gotten a
more receptive audience. Most of her statement is aligned with the
general right-wing consensus of what should happen in response to
Charlie Kirk’s murder. There’s a large demand to go after left-wing
speech that encourages violence. It’s a view expressed by Vice President
J.D. Vance, White House Deputy Chief of State Stephen Miller, and many
others. The difference is that Bondi called it “hate speech.”
The AG eventually issued a statement saying the Justice Department would not target individuals over this noxious idea.
This
event could be interpreted as a mere flub on the part of a government
official prone to such gaffes. But it’s more than that. Her comments
should make the right ponder the possibilities of what might happen if
the government begins arresting waves of leftists for unsavory speech
that allegedly could lead to violence and how this standard could easily
be used against the right.
In
the interview with Katie Miller, Bondi highlights campus antisemitism
as one of her concerns with hate speech and how the government is using
its power to crack down on it. She also made sure to point out that they
want to target hate speech “across the aisle,” bringing up the arson of
Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro’s house as an example. It’s implied
Shapiro was targeted by a right-winger, when in fact the arson was the work of a leftist.
One
could reasonably conclude that Bondi’s DOJ intends to target
right-wingers with this standard. That would absolutely set a precedent
for Democratic administrations to follow, empowering the left to
persecute conservatives for merely endorsing immigration restriction or
criticizing Black Lives Matter.
It’s
necessary to be careful and clear about how the government responds to
left-wing extremism. The Trump administration is right to declare Antifa
a domestic terror group and should go after any organizations that aid
its efforts. It should also investigate the far-left Discord chats that
inspire deranged individuals to embrace violence. But the admin should
avoid setting a standard that could be exploited to target “hate
speech.”
While
nearly all rightists are united against hate speech laws, there is a
growing tendency to want some speech restrictions. There’s the
aforementioned effort to suppress alleged antisemitism on college
campuses. There was widespread right-wing support for a ban on flag
burning when President Donald Trump issued an executive order on the matter last month. A few commentators even entertain the idea of bringing back blasphemy laws. Prominent voices either implicitly or explicitly state that greater protection of free speech is a “leftist” desire.
These
sentiments contrast sharply with the administration’s efforts to
counter draconian speech laws in Europe. Trump and senior cabinet
members routinely pillory the UK, Germany, and other European states for
censoring and arresting its citizens for opposing mass immigration.
It’s nonsensical to push for any form of speech restriction in the U.S.
while opposing these same measures in the EU.
There’s
an apparent feeling that the right now has the social capital and
institutional power to implement our own speech codes. That’s
presumptuous, to say the least. Many of the people who will be
interpreting these measures are liberal bureaucrats and officials. Let’s
say we do counter “violent speech.” In the eyes of a liberal, demanding
a strong response to riots or even “misgendering” a trans individual
could count as threats of violence. Any limitation on free speech would
be a gift to the left. Thanks to their power in elite institutions and
within the administrative state, they can interpret these laws as they
see fit. It would make it much easier to have de facto hate speech laws,
even if the law says we have no such thing.
Free
speech is good for the right. It’s why the administration wants it to
spread to Europe. Trump was able to win the 2024 election in large part
due to the freer state of social media. The 47th president didn’t have
to worry about his campaign posts being taken down or his supporters
banned like in 2020. Free speech reigned once more on the big platforms,
which allowed the right to triumph in the election. The right is now
able to broadcast its views to millions without the threat of censorship
or government heavy-handedness. That’s something we should preserve
rather than sacrifice on behalf of a misguided assumption that new
speech restrictions will only be used against the left.
Anti-speech measures would also likely alienate the public. Millions of Americans rated free
speech as one of their most important issues in the 2024 election.
Polls regularly show Americans cherish their rights to free _expression_. A
major reason why Americans turned on woke is because it limited what
they could say and aimed to control what they think. It was an intrusive
force that violated their liberty. Cultural libertarianism defines the
mood of the nation. It would be hard to advocate for speech laws that
solely target the left in this environment.
Safeguarding
free speech would not be a loss for conservatives. Right-wing ideas
would still prevail in the marketplace of ideas, as they do now. It’s
better to preserve this freedom than to give it up.
Conservatives
are right to demand action against left-wing extremism. There is plenty
that the government can do to curb this menace without jeopardizing our
right to free _expression_. It’s imperative to do what’s necessary
without inadvertently creating hate speech laws.
|