Almost as soon as Attorney General Pam Bondi said that federal law enforcement would target anyone for hate speech, she was backpedaling amid backlash from across the political spectrum.

It was a rare and welcome instance where both sides of a deeply divided nation came to agree on something. But how long will it last?

On a podcast, Bondi said, “There’s free speech and then there’s hate speech, and there is no place, especially now, especially after what happened to Charlie, in our society….We will absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech.”

This came after conservatives spent years defending free speech against the left’s attempt to label anything it didn’t like as “hate speech” and silence it.

Here’s how Arthur Milikh, who is currently the executive director of the Center for the American Way of Life at the Claremont Institute, put it in 2020:

Many still underestimate how possible it is for ‘hate speech’ to be banned in America, and how enormous is the movement already pushing to accomplish it. We all have already see the growing list of cavalier assaults on speech: from Kamala Harris’ Senate resolution proposing to outlaw the phrase ‘Wuhan Virus’; to New York City’s attempt to fine anyone using the phrase ‘illegal alien’ $250,000; to Big Tech’s one-way speech banning ratchet; to the ever-expanding closedmindedness of our campuses. These are not merely isolated instances of outlandish far-left ploys — they are the direct and necessary outgrowths of identity politics.

Over the following four years, the Biden administration did everything it could to prove Milikh right, including enlisting Big Tech to carry out its censorship goals.

Just a few months ago, Vice President JD Vance laid down a marker against this kind of censorship when he went to Europe and attacked the continent’s leaders for attacking free speech.

“Dismissing people, dismissing their concerns … shutting down media, shutting down elections … protects nothing. It is the most surefire way to destroy democracy,” he said.

“In Washington, there is a new sheriff in town, and under Donald Trump’s leadership, we may disagree with your views, but we will fight to defend your right to offer it in the public square, agree or disagree.”

A report from the Trump State Department issued in August cited “credible reports of serious restrictions on freedom of expression, including enforcement of or threat of criminal or civil laws in order to limit expression” in the U.K.

To her credit, Bondi quickly went on X to clarify her remarks, saying “Hate speech that crosses the line into threats of violence is NOT protected by the First Amendment. It’s a crime.”

True enough.

Also true is her statement that “For far too long, we’ve watched the radical left normalize threats, call for assassinations, and cheer on political violence.”

But Bondi’s initial impulse shows just how easy it can be for conservatives to do the very things they decry in a moment of duress. There’s a whole movement of “nationalist” conservatives who, tired of the fight to rein in big government, think the answer is to embrace big government – the high taxes, massive spending, subsidies, mandates, industrial policies –  and just try to direct it to achieve conservative ends, apparently not realizing the glaring internal contradiction.

Ok, but what’s the correct response when people cheer on political assassination?

As abhorrent as such speech is, the answer isn’t to threaten prison time or limit free speech rights.

“Call them out, and hell, call their employer,” JD Vance said as he guest-hosted an episode of the Charlie Kirk Show. And he’s right. People have the right to say disgusting things. And individuals have the right to shun them. Companies have the right to fire them. And networks have a right to cancel their shows.

It’s especially amusing to see leftists cry and whine about this blowback, and suddenly champion free speech, after one of theirs killed a man for practicing it. Our favorite meme in the wake of Charlie Kirk’s murder was “Those who cheer the assassination of Charlie Kirk for things he said can’t object to being fired for things they said.”

The left’s embrace of free speech is entirely situational. They will soon be out in force again, trying to silence anyone they disagree with.

Our recommendation for those of us who are righteously angered and upset by Charlie Kirk’s murder, and even more disturbed by the reaction of so many on the left, is to take a moment to remember that there are bigger principles at stake, and that situational ethics are the province of the left.

— Written by the I&I Editorial Board