Sep
16
2025

The Worst Got on Top

Hayek titled Chapter 10 of his classic The Road to Serfdom "Why the Worst Get on Top". And over the past few days, there's been a lot of examples, but I'll try to concentrate on….

  • Our Nitwit AG. Charles C.W. Cooke reviews Pam Bondi's Ridiculous 24 Hours. (NR gifted link)

    It has not been a good 24 hours for Pam Bondi, the attorney general of the United States. Yesterday, on the Katie Miller Podcast, Bondi said:

    We will absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech.

    Actually, she won’t. She won’t “target” or “go after” anyone for “hate speech,” because, legally, there is no such thing as “hate speech” in the United States, and because, as a government employee, she is bound by the First Amendment. And if she tries it anyway? The Supreme Court will side against her, 9-0.

    Charlie has more examples of BondiBabble. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, I've heard. And it's especially inexcusable from the attorney general of the United States.

  • The Free Press editors also pile on: Pam Bondi vs. the First Amendment.

    At last, something we can all agree on: Pam Bondi 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.

    Hate speech is not illegal. It is not even a legal category in the U.S. Yes, we have laws against incitement, defamation, and libel, but nothing so broad and amorphous as “hate speech.” As Kirk himself once put it: “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.”

  • At Patterico's Pontifications, Dana observes There Is No Charitable Read: Pam Bondi Is Just Very Wrong On This. But what can you expect when the guy who hired her…

    Yup, wrong on free speech and free press. From someone who twice took an oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

    That's the whole Constitution, Donnie. Including the First Amendment.

  • I'd also like to quote Ann Althouse's post in full. She quotes President Trump's Truth Social post :

    Today, I have the Great Honor of bringing a $15 Billion Dollar Defamation and Libel Lawsuit against The New York Times, one of the worst and most degenerate newspapers in the History of our Country, becoming a virtual “mouthpiece” for the Radical Left Democrat Party. I view it as the single largest illegal Campaign contribution, EVER. Their Endorsement of Kamala Harris was actually put dead center on the front page of The New York Times, something heretofore UNHEARD OF! The “Times” has engaged in a decades long method of lying about your Favorite President (ME!), my family, business, the America First Movement, MAGA, and our Nation as a whole. I am PROUD to hold this once respected “rag” responsible, as we are doing with the Fake News Networks such as our successful litigation against George Slopadopoulos/ABC/Disney, and 60 Minutes/CBS/Paramount, who knew that they were falsely “smearing” me through a highly sophisticated system of document and visual alteration, which was, in effect, a malicious form of defamation, and thus, settled for record amounts. They practiced this longterm INTENT and pattern of abuse, which is both unacceptable and illegal. The New York Times has been allowed to freely lie, smear, and defame me for far too long, and that stops, NOW! The suit is being brought in the Great State of Florida. Thank you for your attention to this matter. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!

    Her comments are brief but on target:

    If your idea of America greatness doesn't include freedom of speech, it's not worth much.

    And if you think the NYT is making an "illegal Campaign contribution" when it speaks about political candidates, you must want Citizens United overruled.

  • In Pam's defense, she got things slightly less wrong here:

    Er, Pam? "True threats" are not protected by the First Amendment, period. It doesn't matter what motives the threateners have, "hate" or something else.

  • Robby Soave is also piling on: Pam Bondi is really wrong about hate speech. And he makes the ultimate insult:

    Bondi sounds like Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, Kamala Harris' pick to be vice president, who made similar claims during the 2024 campaign—and that's a very bad thing. Both are appallingly wrong. The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that so-called hate speech falls under First Amendment protection, most recently in the 2017 case Matal v. Tam, which was decided unanimously.

    After numerous commentators—including many fellow conservatives—called out Bondi, she clarified that she was referring to "hate speech that crosses the line into threats of violence." She's correct that true threats of violence against specific individuals or institutions lose First Amendment protection if they are specific enough, though general advocacy of violence is usually still protected. This kind of speech isn't called hate speech though; it's called incitement. Hate speech, on its own, is simply not a separate category of unprotected speech, from the standpoint of the Supreme Court.

    She's a nitwit.

  • Jim Geraghty has some relevant observations: ‘Consequence Culture’ Comes for the Angry Left.

    As discussed on Friday’s Three Martini Lunch podcast, if somebody posts something abominable, stupid, or hateful on social media after a tragedy, his employer doesn’t necessarily need to fire that employee. But the employer really should have some sort of intervention, some sort of action that says to the employee, “Don’t do this. It’s not good for the company, it makes all of us look bad, and it’s really not good for you, either. You look and sound like a cruel maniac. We really don’t want a cruel maniac in our workplace. You really shouldn’t be taking pleasure in the suffering of others. If this is what brings joy and meaning into your life, you have serious emotional issues and should be seeing a mental health professional.”

    (It is more than fair to wonder if someone who reacts to shocking violence with glee or celebration will someday feel tempted to commit their own act of shocking violence.)

    The appropriate response could be one of those long uncomfortable meetings with HR, a temporary suspension, a chewing out by the boss — mutatis mutandis. An employer is justified in treating a well-liked, productive, otherwise good employee who had an uncharacteristic intemperate outburst differently than an employee with a history of troubling behavior or other work problems.

    And in many cases, the employer will be perfectly justified in cutting ties. If you’re a teacher, and you post something horrific, many parents will not want you teaching their children. (Another argument for school choice!) If you are a doctor or nurse, many patients will wonder if you give them the best care if you disagree with their politics.

That's it for today. Maybe more of the same tomorrow.