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.

Bondi continued:

There’s free speech and then there’s hate speech. And there’s no place, especially now, especially after what happened to Charlie.

No, no, no. This distinction is false, incorrect, imaginary. It does not exist. It is a fiction. Under every relevant Supreme Court precedent, speech is speech is speech. There are other categories of speech: libel, incitement, threats, and so on. But speech that is supposedly “hateful” — including about Charlie Kirk’s murder — is undoubtedly protected by the Constitution. Kirk himself was clear about this.

Separately, on Fox News last night, Bondi told Sean Hannity:

And employers, you, have to have an obligation to get rid of people. You need to look at people who are saying horrible things. And they shouldn’t be working with you. Businesses cannot discriminate. If you wanna go in and print posters with Charlie’s pictures on them for a vigil, you have to let them do that. We can prosecute you for that.

Again: no, no, no. No such “obligation” exists. A business can “get rid” of an employee for saying ugly things — or, in this case, for refusing to do the job for which they were hired. But they do not have to. Moreover, in this particular circumstance, the business absolutely can “discriminate.” Bondi said, “if you wanna go in and print posters with Charlie’s pictures on them for a vigil, you have to let them do that. We can prosecute you for that.” Neither of those things is true. If Office Depot had declined the request because the customer had white skin, that would be illegal. But printing is expression, and private companies are thoroughly within their rights to decline to accept a commission that implicates them in that expression. Securing legal recognition of that right has been a priority for conservatives for decades. It is astonishing to witness a Republican attorney general taking the other side.