The LuLac Edition #5, 451, September 24th, 2025

 

WRITE ON WEDNESDAY 

 Our "Write On Wednesday" logo.  

This week we look at a Facebook post meant to educate in clear terms the very definition of what the Republicans call hate speech. I guess you can say “you know it when you hear it” but what bothers me is the selectivity being used in the Charlie Kirk case. We can’t pick and choose what people think is objectionable, we should follow the advice of the Beatles and just  “Let It Be”. Personally I think there has been a lot of restraint and deference given to Mr. Kirk, none of which I saw in the assassinations of Dr. King and Bobby Kennedy in the 60s. What bothers me is that the GOP has been absolute in their belief of the Constitution except when they want to portray themselves as victims.  You didn’t hear the Democrats going to war over a photo of a then current Vice President’s head encased in a toilet bowl last year because that wasn’t the GOP ox being gored. But Oh my God, a comedian makes an un -artful remark and the administration wants to control free speech..

The first amendment stands on its own, it never did until now needed a referee to make any calls. The following post gives one a clear message as to the threats we all face by behaviors of people who have had the advantage in life of knowing  any better. 

 

·       BONDI, MILLER, VP VANCE  THEIR THREAT TO FREE SPEECH

 Recently I have followed threats made by the likes of AG Bondi and Trump advisor, Stephen Miller that the Government will go after those who advance hate speech in the aftermath of the Kirk killing and VP Vance’s admonition for people to report v individuals who engage in hate speech.

There remarks pose a grave threat to our first amendment right to freedom of speech.  Though there is no specific definition of hate speech it is generally recognized as speech aimed at a particular person or group involving race, gender, nationality etc.

Though one might consider such speech as vile and disgusting there is no hate speech exception to the free speech clause of the first amendment. Metal v Tam (U.S. 2017).

The first amendment insures robust public discourse on ideas irrespective of how offensive the ideas might be, particularly as to political commentary.  Brandenburg v Ohio (U.S. 1969).

The only exception is when the speech targets a person or group with imminent threat of violence that will likely be carried out.

Today, people are being threatened with prosecution and some have even lost their jobs over their public remarks about Charlie Kirk and his death. Some have even applauded his assassination. While I believe applauding anyone’s death in such a manner is disgusting, such speech is protected under the first amendment. The same with attacking the ideas Charlie Kirk or our President espouses. Free speech is essential to our democracy and the threats by Government to quell free speech is our greatest danger.

Whatever law school Pam Bondi attended, “that law school failed”.  Attacks on the ideas espoused by the Likes of Kirk or Miller or other political leaders who espouse similar ideas should not go unchallenged. Doing so will undermine the freedom we hold dearest.

Attorney Al Flora wrote this piece. He is a veteran Defense Attorney in Luzerne County and the state.  

o  

 

f