Undoubtedly in reaction to the left's hateful response to conservative activist Charlie Kirk's assassination, Attorney General Pam Bondi crossed a line this week by suggesting that her Justice Department would target and prosecute Americans who engage in alleged "hate speech," though she quickly walked back and clarified those remarks amid fierce backlash.

The clarification from Bondi was necessary because so-called "hate speech" isn't a real or prosecutable thing, as the U.S. Supreme Court has determined multiple times, according to CNN.

Indeed, short of direct threats of violence or incitement of imminent physical harm, the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment specifically protects from prosecution the most egregious and hurtful forms of free speech.

Bondi crossed the line

The controversy erupted on Monday when Bondi appeared on the podcast of Katie Miller, wife of White House senior adviser Stephen Miller, and reacted with anger to the disturbing and hateful comments from some leftists in response to the political assassination of Charlie Kirk, according to NBC News.

"There’s free speech and then there’s hate speech," Bondi asserted. "We will absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech, anything -- and that’s across the aisle."

"You can’t have that hate speech in the world in which we live," she added. "There is no place, especially now, especially after what happened to Charlie, in our society."

A walkback and clarification

The pushback against Bondi was swift and bipartisan, and it prompted a rapid walkback and clarification from the senior Trump administration official, including in an X post and in a statement to a media outlet, but even still, according to CNN, Bondi's remarks remained problematic under various Supreme Court precedents on free speech.

"Hate speech that crosses the line into threats of violence is NOT protected by the First Amendment. It’s a crime," Bondi said on social media. "For far too long, we’ve watched the radical left normalize threats, call for assassinations, and cheer on political violence. That era is over."

Later, in a statement to Axios, the AG further clarified, "Freedom of speech is sacred in our country, and we will never impede upon that right. My intention was to speak about threats of violence that individuals incite against others."

"Under President Trump, the Department of Justice will be unabashed in our efforts to root out credible, violent threats," she continued. "We will investigate organizations that pursue illegal activities, engage in political violence, violate our civil rights, and commit tax or nonprofit fraud."

"If you are using the assassination of Charlie to encourage more acts of imminent violence, you will be held accountable under my leadership at the DOJ," Bondi added. "If you want to be a hateful person and simply say hateful things, that is your right to do so. If you want to be a violent person, I will stop you."

Multiple precedents govern

As CNN noted, multiple Supreme Court precedents prohibit the government from prosecuting so-called "hate speech," a decidedly subjective term applied to some terrible speech that is nonetheless protected by the First Amendment.

Yet, even Bondi's clarification about targeting speech leading to violence is potentially problematic, as the outlet observed that the Supreme Court has sharply narrowed the free speech exception to only apply to "true threats" of violence or speech that incites or results in "imminent lawless action" against others.

As for the push from Bondi and other administration officials for private companies to fire or suspend those who've publicly celebrated or mocked the Kirk assassination, even that effort may go too far, as the Supreme Court has ruled that the government can't coerce or pressure private parties into doing what it is not allowed to do itself, such as punish individuals for disfavored but protected speech.