Over the weekend, California Governor Gavin Newsom unleashed a shocking attack, labeling White House advisor Stephen Miller a “FASCIST”—a blatant misuse of language that reveals a reckless disregard for the consequences of such incendiary rhetoric. This unprovoked assault was echoed by his official press office account, amplifying the chaos. Hours later, a horrific shooting at a Latter-day Saints church in Michigan—completely unrelated—cast even more shadows over this political melee. The question begs to be asked: Why escalate tensions with such inflammatory language when our nation is already grappling with rising violence?

Attorney General Pam Bondi stirred unease within conservative ranks weeks earlier by vowing to prosecute “hate speech.” After years of observing the left vilify any Christian or conservative viewpoint as “hate,” many rightfully wondered if Bondi was merely adopting their divisive tactics. The question remains: Should the right stoop to the left’s level, or stand firm in righteousness?

We will not wait for courts to decide. The decisive judgment comes from the American people who, with a unified voice, proclaim: Enough.

Bondi later clarified her intentions, stating she aimed to target only speech that incites violence. This clarification is significant. However, it necessitates a deeper exploration of what constitutes incitement under the First Amendment.

The Supreme Court’s Stance

The landmark case of Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) set a solid precedent. The Supreme Court ruled that government cannot penalize “advocacy of the use of force or law violation” unless the speech specifically meets three criteria:

• It is directed at inciting imminent lawless action,
• It is intended to produce that action, and
• It is likely to succeed in inciting that violence.

This solid foundation explains why the infamous “fire in a crowded theater” analogy holds merit: yelling “fire” without cause directly contributes to chaos and injury. However, political and cultural discourse is distinctly different. The court has granted broad latitude for public speech—even when it’s crude or inflammatory.

Where the Line Blurs

Two principles complicate this landscape further.

First, libel law: False claims damaging a reputation can lead to civil consequences. Public figures, however, face a higher burden of proof, which is why outrageous stories often slip through the cracks.

Second, there’s the concept of known risk: If a public figure repeatedly employs rhetoric warned to incite violence, legal ramifications may arise if violence ensues. This is where Democrats like Newsom invite scrutiny. They preach about “toning down rhetoric,” yet willingly hurl baseless accusations. At the attempted assassination of Charlie Kirk, a cartridge bore the phrase, “Hey fascist! Catch!” Democrats are fully aware that their language incites hatred, yet they persist. At best, this is blatant hypocrisy; at worst, it nudges dangerously close to the very standards they wish to impose on conservatives.

The Moral Dimension

Hypocrisy may be ugly, but it is not criminal—and it shouldn’t be. The First Amendment guarantees the right to be foolish, offensive, or wrong. The remedy for undesirable speech is not government censorship; it’s the judgment of an informed populace.

Conservatives must not resort to silencing opponents. Instead, they can withdraw their support: stop watching their shows, boycott their books, withdraw funding from their advertisers, and refuse to vote for their candidates. Let hypocrites speak into the void.

RELATED: The right message: Justice. The wrong messenger: Pam Bondi.

Photo by Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images

We can—and must—model a better approach. Rather than exchanging insults, let’s engage in vigorous debate. Expose and dismantle false assumptions in the public arena. This was Charlie Kirk’s method, and it must become the standard for conservatives nationwide.

Dismissive Marxist professors may cling to their jobs, but let them lecture to empty classrooms. Late-night hosts may continue their mockery, but let’s ensure they do so without any advertisers. This is how a free society governs the public square—by deciding what to reward and what to ignore.

Discernment Over Censorship

Christians and conservatives ought not to rely on the government to police “hate speech.” That strategy only leads to disappointment, or worse, to the suppression of our beliefs when power shifts.

Instead, let’s take tangible actions:

• Teach the next generation to recognize manipulative rhetoric and refute it with strong arguments.
• Withdraw financial and moral support from those who abuse free speech.
• Champion institutions that promote open debate rather than stifle it.

If Democrats ever breach the threshold set by Brandenburg and face legal consequences, so be it. But we do not have to depend on the judiciary. The most potent judgment belongs to everyday Americans saying, peacefully and firmly: Enough.