Two points:
One-- Any legislation named for a person ends up being a bad idea, used to grow government and destroy liberty. It will be misused, if the intention is to solve a problem.
Two--"Hate speech", if it's even a real thing, is free speech. It tells the rest of us who the evil losers are. I don’t want them censored; I want them free to loudly proclaim their evil to the world so that the rest of us know who to watch- who we might need to defend ourselves from. “Hate speech laws” [sic] short-circuit this vital source of information just to make statists feel better.
You were warned about anti-liberty bigot, Pam Bondi. Anti-gun bigots aren't going to respect your other rights, either. Not unless it's really convenient.
Here was a recent exchange I found myself in:
S: "It is literally illegal to make death threats or call for the death of people."
“Illegal”, but the “law” is unconstitutional (if you care).
S: "Show me where it says it is legal to threaten peoples lives in the Constitution. The House and Senate pass Laws, it literally isn't Unconstitutional"
You’re doing it backward. It’s not what government allows, it’s what government is allowed to do.
Again, it doesn’t matter what “laws” they pass if those “laws” aren’t permitted by the Constitution. And “hate speech laws” [sic] are not.
By this person's illogic, all anti-gun "laws" would "literally" not be unconstitutional, because "The House and Senate pass Laws". Nice mental gymnastics, if you can manage it.
Now, if you call for someone to be murdered, self-defensive action is then ethical, and you might not like that outcome.
Leave a tip?