So to Speak: The Free Speech Podcast

Ep. 253: Pam Bondi says hate speech is not free speech — is she right?

Date: September 16, 2025
Host: Nico Perrino (A), FIRE
Panelists:

• Sarah McLaughlin (B), FIRE Senior Scholar for Global Expression, Author of Authoritarians in the Academy
• Ronald “Ronnie” London (C), FIRE General Counsel
• Aaron Terr (D), Director of Public Advocacy, FIRE

Episode Overview

This episode is a rapid-response FIRE Reacts panel in response to U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi's recent televised remarks asserting "hate speech is not free speech." The discussion addresses widespread confusion regarding hate speech under the First Amendment, the dangers of such broad statements by high officials, and the real-world fallout—particularly after the recent assassination of campus speaker Charlie Kirk.

The panel answers listener questions and unpacks:

• What "hate speech" means legally in America
• How attempts to police hate speech often threaten core free expression
• The difference between hate speech and unprotected categories such as incitement, true threats, fighting words, and defamation
• International perspectives and consequences of hate speech laws
• The impact on campus environments, employment, and cancel culture
• Questions over the role of the U.S. Supreme Court and institutional responses

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. What Is (and Isn’t) Hate Speech Under the First Amendment?

• Non-Legal Term:
  • “Hate speech, that’s my question. What do you mean by hate speech? It’s a non-legal term. It’s a non-category of speech.”
    —Ronnie London (C), [02:34]
• U.S. law contains specific unprotected categories (e.g., incitement, true threats, defamation), but "hate speech" is not among them.
• Aaron Terr underscores that "hate" is subjective: “The way that people define hate speech is often just to target the sorts of political views or beliefs that they personally consider offensive…” [03:14]

2. Risks of Government Policing Hate Speech

• International Context:
  • Sarah McLaughlin warns about the global consequences:
    “What we've been warning about for a long time is the potential for hate speech restrictions to be essentially a free for all for a government censorship of political speech… a shocking arrest… in Germany over a man who tweeted, ‘you are such a penis’ at a politician.” [05:57]
• Examples of “hate speech” enforcement show it often serves to suppress dissent or criticism of the politically powerful.
• Panelists argue: Allowing government crackdown on undefined "hate speech" becomes a “blank check” for state censorship.

3. The Problematic Use of Vague Terms: Doxxing and Beyond

• Both “hate speech” and “doxxing” lack consistent legal definitions—leading to arbitrary or politically-motivated enforcement attempts.
• Aaron Terr:
  “Doxxing is another term that… doesn’t really have an objective legal definition. It’s sort of like hate speech; people just use it to mean all sorts of different things…” [12:15]

4. Why “Fighting Words,” Incitement, and True Threats Are Different

• The panel clarifies the very narrow scope of incitement and true threats, using First Amendment precedents.
• “Incitement to imminent lawless action” is defined as speech “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action”—a high bar, per Supreme Court (Brandenburg v. Ohio).
• “True threats” involve serious intent to commit unlawful violence (Virginia v. Black).
• Discussion of Watts v. United States (1969) illustrates context: “language of the political arena is often vituperative, abusive, and inexact…” [17:11]

5. The Context Problem—And the “Eye of the Beholder”

• The case of trademarking “The Slants” (Matal v. Tam) highlighted that “freedom for the thought that we hate” is a proud tradition—what’s hateful to one is not to another [04:42].
• Context always matters—what sounds like a threat in one setting may be protected in another.
• Attempts to broaden exceptions ("advocating genocide") are discussed: “There is no exception for abstract advocacy of violence.” —Aaron Terr [17:59]

6. Faculty Terminations and the Chilling Effect on Higher Ed

• Sarah:
  “At least two professors have been fired by [Clemson] University… for just offensive speech… There's one word that I haven't seen though: claims that the speech has been unprotected.” [22:07]
• Even offensive or vile opinions are typically protected at public universities, unless they cause a substantial disruption (Pickering balance).
• Ronnie:
  “If someone is speaking as a private citizen on a matter of public concern, then the government employer can’t punish them unless there is substantial enough disruption…” [24:27]
• Tenured professors have additional contractual protections, while adjunct/at-will have fewer due process rights.

7. Cancel Culture and the Role of Employers

• Legal vs. cultural consequences: private employers can legally fire employees for most speech, but the cultural problem is broader.
• Aaron:
  “Free speech… is a broader concept than just the First Amendment. … If we lose faith in it as a cultural value, it probably will not be long after that that we… wonder, ‘why should we even enshrine it as a legal protection?’” [40:04]
• “Cancel culture” can spiral rapidly, causing disproportionate harm even beyond the original context [42:25].

8. Rights of Non-Citizens and Foreign Nationals

• Non-citizens lawfully present in the U.S. have the same First Amendment rights as citizens (Bridges v. Wixon, [32:13]).
• Deporting or sanctioning a non-citizen for protected speech is unconstitutional.
• Many come to the U.S. because of its robust speech protections compared to the rest of the world [34:17].

9. Supreme Court: Trustworthy Guardian of Free Speech?

• The Court’s track record is mostly positive for free speech but flagged recent problematic decisions (particularly regarding the internet and minors).
• Ronnie on TikTok and prior restraint:
  “If it’s applied with discipline and with principle, that case will involve literally nothing but content that is obscene as to minors…” [52:45]
• Caution that courts do not always provide a reliable backstop, especially in times of political pressure.

10. Advice for Navigating a Polarized and Risky Speech Environment

• Courage and solidarity are key:
  “I think we can control… how much courage we have over [backlash] and how willing we are to take on that kind of backlash…” —Sarah [60:25]
• Model civil discourse online; defend free speech even for those you disagree with; seek out and offer mutual support [61:46].
• The right to anonymous speech is a foundational American principle—dating back to the Federalist Papers [63:36].
  Ronnie: “Not only do you have a First Amendment right to speak, you have a First Amendment right to speak anonymously…” [63:36]
• Know your rights, especially at public institutions [64:17].

Notable Quotes and Memorable Moments

“Freedom for the thought that we hate.”
—Ronnie, quoting the Supreme Court (Matal v. Tam), [04:42]

“If you are in the United States, you have First Amendment protection to speak freely.”
—Sarah, [31:44]

“Once censors get a taste for blood, their appetite for it does only grow.”
—Aaron, [43:58]

“The more that we… defend free speech… to show that you’re not just defending your own right, but also defending other people when they come under fire even though they don’t agree with you… The more people do that, the more we’ll have faith in our fellow citizens…”
—Aaron, [61:46]

“You have a First Amendment right to speak anonymously. … It should absolutely not be necessary… but at the same time… you can avail yourself of that right as well.”
—Ronnie, [63:36]

Key Timestamps for Major Topics

• [02:34] – What is “hate speech” under U.S. law?
• [05:57] – How hate speech laws are abused abroad
• [11:00] – Distinguishing hate speech, doxxing, and legal categories
• [15:16] – The Watts case: threats, context, and free speech
• [17:59] – The importance of context in First Amendment law
• [22:07] – Professors fired for social media posts (Clemson example)
• [31:44] – Free speech rights for non-citizens in the U.S.
• [40:04] – Cancel culture: legal reality vs. cultural crisis
• [52:45] – Can we rely on the Supreme Court?
• [60:25] – Coping with backlash: courage, solidarity, and civil discourse
• [63:36] – The right to anonymous speech

Conclusion

The panel firmly rejects Pam Bondi’s assertion that “hate speech is not free speech.” They demonstrate that, under U.S. law, even deeply offensive speech is protected unless it falls within narrow, well-defined exceptions. World experience—and America’s own political context—shows that vague bans on “hate speech” enable government overreach and threaten democracy itself.

The route to a healthy free speech culture, they argue, involves principled defense of expression (even for opponents), support for robust legal norms, and everyday courage in standing up for the right to speak—on and off campus, and for every speaker.

For further resources:

• Listen to this episode and more at So to Speak: The Free Speech Podcast
• FIRE resources on campus speech: thefire.org/alarm
• For legal assistance: Faculty Legal Defense Fund via FIRE

End of summary.