Republicans, led by Donald Trump, now apparently want to rewrite the First Amendment's guarantee of the freedom of speech. Their interpretation of it seems to be that conservatives should be allowed to say whatever they want -- no matter how vile or vicious or hateful -- about whomever they want, while liberals should be locked up if they ever say anything negative about conservatives. That's how they want to define "free speech" these days: free speech for me, but not for thee.

This comes, of course, from the top down. Donald Trump was asked about the idea of the Department of Justice "going after" liberals for their "hate speech," and he told the reporter: "We'll probably go after people like you because you treat me so unfairly. It's hate. You have a lot of hate in your heart." Got that? This is a White House reporter from ABC, and Trump is flat-out warning him that the government might "go after" him because he is not sufficiently loving towards the Dear Leader.

This was after the vice president threatened liberal-leaning organizations with prosecution, and the attorney general stating she's going to criminalize speech that she deems "hate speech." On a podcast this week, Pam 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 [Kirk] -- in our society.... We will absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech.

She also threatened to prosecute businesses she didn't like as well:

Businesses cannot discriminate. If you want to go 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.

This was in reference to a Office Depot employee who had refused to print such a poster.

Bondi got some pushback on all of this from a surprising direction, as several conservatives denounced her statements. Erik Erikson responded on social media: "Our Attorney General is apparently a moron. 'There's free speech and then there is hate speech.' No ma'am. That is not the law." Here's another conservative commentator, Matt Walsh: "[T]here obviously shouldn't be any legal repercussions for 'hate speech,' which is not even a valid or coherent concept. There is no law against saying hateful things, and there shouldn't be." In a separate post, Walsh urged Trump to fire Bondi: "Get rid of her. Today. This is insane." Walsh also commented on Bondi's views on discrimination as well: "Conservatives have fought for decades for the right to refuse service to anyone. We won that fight. Now Pam Bondi wants to roll it all back for no reason."

Brit Hume of Fox News chimed in as well: "Someone needs to explain to Ms. Bondi that so-called 'hate speech,' repulsive though it may be, is protected by the First Amendment. She should know this." Even Senator Ted Cruz disagreed with Bondi: "The First Amendment absolutely protects speech. It absolutely protects hate speech. It protects vile speech. It protects horrible speech. What does that mean? It means you cannot be prosecuted for speech, even if it is evil and bigoted and wrong."

Here is what Charlie Kirk himself had to say on the subject a while ago:

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.

Bondi, faced with all this pushback from her own side of the aisle, backed down. She tried to walk back her statement by claiming she was just going after "hate speech that crosses the line into threats of violence."

But you can tell what people like Trump and Bondi and JD Vance really believe. They want the power to prosecute and imprison people who say things they don't like. They try to justify their unconstitutional beliefs by claiming such speech is "domestic terrorism," even without any threat of violence. They're threatening George Soros and his organization with prosecution under the RICO laws, because Donald Trump believes that any political protest anywhere that comes from the left was paid for and organized by the evil genius Soros. It's pretty clear what their intent truly is: outlaw speech that they don't want to hear.

All the while, Donald Trump and all other Republicans are free to use the most hateful speech imaginable about liberals. If it actually was illegal to utter "hate speech" in this country, Trump would now be sitting in a cell somewhere (on Alcatraz?) serving a life sentence, since he is an absolute fount of hate speech against anyone he doesn't like. There are so many examples of his hate speech that it would be impossible to count them all up, in fact. But it's not just Trump, of course. Any person who has said anything bad about Charlie Kirk or Donald Trump or conservatives is vilified with the most vicious and disgusting speech imaginable (on a continuing basis on the internet), and that's all completely fine. Because according to them, "hate speech" only comes from the left, period.

This is not only dangerous and tyrannical, it is precisely why the First Amendment is there in the first place. The government is simply not allowed to police political speech. If you don't incite a riot or spur others to violence, then your speech is fully protected by the Constitution -- no matter what you have to say. This is why liberals have never called for Donald Trump to be locked up just because he constantly uses the most hateful speech imaginable -- because doing so would be unconstitutional.

I am glad to see at least a few on the right understand all of this as well. I am glad Pam Bondi did get such pushback from her own ranks. In fact, I salute those who stood up against her even though I strongly disagree with their politics. Because while hate speech does indeed have harmful effects to American society, making it illegal would be a whole lot worse (and unconstitutional). Hate speech is the price we all pay for enjoying free speech. If you ban hate speech, then you have destroyed free speech -- unless you define "free speech" as "you can say anything you want, as long as Donald Trump agrees with it."

-- Chris Weigant

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant