Playback speed:
Attorney General Pam Bondi’s recent comments about prosecuting “hate speech” have ignited a constitutional firestorm. But here’s the truth most Americans don’t understand: hate speech isn’t a legal category in the United States.
The confusion surrounding hate speech and the First Amendment reveals a dangerous gap in constitutional literacy. While the Bible calls Christians to reject hateful language, the Constitution protects even offensive speech from government censorship.
What the Constitution Actually Says About Hate Speech
The First Amendment contains no hate speech exception. Period.
Supreme Court precedent is crystal clear. In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the Court ruled that even advocacy of violence receives constitutional protection unless it incites “imminent lawless action.”
The narrow exceptions to free speech include:
- True threats against specific individuals
- Incitement to immediate violence
- Criminal conspiracy
- Defamation in certain contexts
Notice what’s missing? A general “hate speech” category.
Charlie Kirk’s Constitutional Legacy
The late conservative activist understood this principle better than many lawyers. Kirk consistently argued that America’s strength lies in protecting even “the most disgusting speech.”
“Hate speech does not exist legally in America,” Kirk wrote in May 2024. “There’s ugly speech. There’s gross speech. There’s evil speech. And ALL of it is protected by the First Amendment.”
Kirk recognized a fundamental truth: once government decides what constitutes “hate,” subjective enforcement becomes inevitable.
The Biblical Standard vs. Constitutional Protection
Here’s where Christians must navigate carefully. The Constitution protects speech that the Bible clearly condemns.
Scripture calls believers to higher standards:
Ephesians 4:29 commands: “Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear.”
James 3:9-10 warns: “With it [the tongue] we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse people who are made in the likeness of God. From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. My brothers, these things ought not to be so.”
The Bible’s standard is higher than the Constitution’s minimum protection. Christians should reject hateful speech personally while defending others’ constitutional right to speak freely.
Where Government Authority Actually Ends
Bondi’s attempted clarification revealed continued confusion. She tweeted that “hate speech that crosses the line into threats of violence” isn’t protected.
But this misses the point entirely. Threats of violence aren’t protected because they’re threats—not because they’re hateful.
The federal government cannot prosecute speech based on its offensive content. That’s not constitutional conservatism—that’s European-style censorship.
The Power Americans Actually Possess
Citizens don’t need government intervention to address offensive speech. Americans wield powerful tools:
Economic consequences: Boycotts, employment decisions, and market pressure Social accountability: Public criticism, community standards, and peer pressure
Counter-speech: More speech combating bad speech
Office workers celebrating Kirk’s assassination faced swift termination. That’s appropriate private action, not government censorship.
Why This Matters for Christians
The church has often remained passive while culture deteriorates. But Christians can engage without abandoning constitutional principles.
Colossians 4:6 instructs: “Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person.”
This means:
- Speaking truth with love
- Engaging culture actively, not passively
- Using social influence, not government coercion
- Modeling better speech rather than silencing others
The Dangerous Precedent Problem
History warns against government speech policing. The Biden administration labeled concerned parents “domestic terrorists.” Social media companies censored accurate information as “misinformation.”
Any speech restrictions opened by one administration will be weaponized by the next. Constitutional conservatives must resist this temptation.
Proverbs 15:1 reminds us: “A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.”
Christians change hearts through persuasion, not prosecution.
Moving Forward Constitutionally
The solution isn’t government censorship—it’s citizen engagement.
Americans must:
- Learn constitutional boundaries
- Exercise social accountability
- Support private consequences for offensive speech
- Reject government thought policing
Christians specifically should:
- Model gracious speech personally
- Engage culture boldly but lovingly
- Use economic and social influence wisely
- Defend constitutional principles even when offensive speech results
The Bottom Line
The hate speech First Amendment debate reveals a crucial truth: America’s strength lies in protecting unpopular speech while empowering citizens to respond appropriately.
The Constitution sets the legal minimum. The Bible calls Christians to a higher standard. Both can coexist when we understand the difference between government authority and personal responsibility.
Charlie Kirk defended this principle with his life. The least we can do is defend it with our votes, our voices, and our values.
Watch the full constitutional analysis in this Fifth Column discussion about Bondi’s comments and the legal realities of free speech protection.
Constitutional Showdown examines current events through biblical principles and constitutional law. For more analysis of faith and freedom issues, subscribe to our newsletter.
