Image 01 Image 03

Attorney General Walks Back Threats on “Hate Speech”

Attorney General Walks Back Threats on “Hate Speech”

But she’s still unsure what motivated the San Bernardino murderers

Following the San Bernardino terrorist attack that resulted in the murder of fourteen, Lynch made clear her concern was not for the victims nor the rise in violent terrorism attacks. Her concern? Hate speech.

When we talk about the First amendment we [must] make it clear that actions predicated on violent talk are not American. They are not who we are, they are not what we do, and they will be prosecuted.

Rightly, those Constitutionally concerned flipped a lid.

Monday, Attorney General Loretta Lynch expanded on comments she made last week.

Politico reports:

Attorney General Loretta Lynch Monday appeared to recalibrate remarks she made last week that suggested the Justice Department could investigate speech deemed hostile towards Muslims.

“Of course, we prosecute deeds and not words,” she said at a press conference Monday to announce an unrelated civil rights investigation into the Chicago Police Department.

Some conservatives criticized Lynch for her comments to a Muslim civil rights group, where she lamented “the ability of people to issue hateful speech of all types from the anonymity of a screen.”

Speaking to a Muslim Advocates dinner in Arlington, Va., Lynch affirmed that “this is a country that is based upon free speech.” However, she went on to suggest that the Justice Department would “take action” when such speech “edges towards violence, when we see the potential to lift…that mantle of anti-Muslim rhetoric.”

“In an interview Sunday about the San Bernardino shootings that killed 14 people, Lynch said she was “not sure” which ideology the San Bernardino shooters were driven by,” writes Politico.

Coincidence or are we just that good? You be the judge.

Follow Kemberlee on Twitter @kemberleekaye


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Are you still on this nonsense? There was nothing to walk back. She said in the first place she would go after “actions predicated on violent talk”, and she reiterated the same thing again. The threat to prosecute speech did not exist except in the heads of certain paranoid right-wingers. Those who flipped their lids were wrong and it’s time they admitted it.

    Ragspierre in reply to Milhouse. | December 7, 2015 at 2:59 pm

    She made a statement that was freaking CHILLING to any speech critical of Islamism.

    No, she did not say she would prosecute JUST speech. But she damn sure hinted at it in terms so flagrant that it was rational to conclude that was here intent.

    Why do you think she was compelled to walk it back?

      Milhouse in reply to Ragspierre. | December 7, 2015 at 5:16 pm

      She wasn’t compelled to walk it back, and she didn’t. Who says she walked it back? Only the same liars who say she said it in the first place.

        Well, Politico wrote that it appears she had to “recalibrate” her remarks. I believe that is synonymous with “walk back” in DC-speak.

        Radegunda in reply to Milhouse. | December 7, 2015 at 6:05 pm

        She made multiple references to “speech” and “rhetoric” in connection with what she aims to prosecute. There was no purpose in mentioning speech or rhetoric or what kind of “talk” she imagines violent actions to be “predicated on,” unless she wants to clamp down on speech.

        It’s unlikely that she had in mind only the kind of speech that directly calls for violence against Muslims, of which there hasn’t been much. This administration doesn’t want us to be critical of the Islamic belief system at all. This president believes that we should not “slander the prophet of Islam” — and he probably knows that “slander” in Islamic doctrine includes true but unflattering statements.

        If Lynch is really concerned about talk on which violent actions are “predicated,” why doesn’t she look into what’s being taught in mosques? Why isn’t she concerned about how much of the Koran is devoted to wishing torment upon “unbelievers”? Why doesn’t she care about the direct calls to fight and subdue infidels and “strike their necks” that are part of orthodox Islam?

          Milhouse in reply to Radegunda. | December 8, 2015 at 7:52 am

          She made references to anti-Moslem speech and rhetoric, both to condemn it as immoral (an opinion she is entitled to hold), and to distinguish it, as protected by the first amendment, from actions it might inspire, which are not protected and which must be prosecuted.

          The president is entitled to his opinion that it’s wrong to badmouth Mohammed. You are entitled to the contrary opinion. You may similarly believe it’s wrong to badmouth Jesus; I don’t know whether you do, but if so you’re entitled to that opinion. But neither he nor Lynch has proposed prosecuting anyone for such speech. The only time she mentioned prosecution it was in relation to actions, not speech.

    You actually think it is OK for the top law enforcement officer of the federal government to threaten investigations of people for nothing more than ‘hateful rhetoric?’ You keep saying she didn’t say it, and I keep pointing you to the exact place where she said it. We have this thing called the Fourth Amendment that protects us from government over-reach in investigations. The reason it is there is because rational people understand that merely being investigated by the government can be punishing, and that a tyrannical government will use those investigations to bend the people to their will.

      Observer in reply to Paul. | December 7, 2015 at 5:05 pm

      Just a reminder. Loretta’s boss said this:

      “The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam.” –Barack Obama, 2012.

        Char Char Binks in reply to Observer. | December 8, 2015 at 10:48 am

        Obama said that in the context of condemning all kinds of intolerance. I actually disagree with him (for too many reasons to go into now), but it wasn’t a pro-Muslim statement, in the sense of taking sides against other religions or viewpoints. He was actually making the typical peace-making, ecumenical noises a politician pretty much has to make, and he was being very diplomatic.

      Milhouse in reply to Paul. | December 7, 2015 at 5:29 pm

      So you think the FBI and NYPD were wrong to keep an eye on mosques and imams, just in case someone crosses the line from speech to action or incitement?! And that the Secret Service should not look into people who advocate violence against the president?! Investigation is not punishment, and it’s entirely appropriate where there is reason to suspect that someone’s speech might be connected to action. Of course they must take care that their investigations are not so intrusive as to chill pure speech, but they should still conduct them.

        Radegunda in reply to Milhouse. | December 7, 2015 at 6:15 pm

        Lynch and her boss don’t like the mosque surveillance. They’ve been taking “advice” from Muslim Brotherhood pressure groups that want to disarm us.

        Lynch and her boss think it’s wrong for infidels to talk about how mosques and the Koran and hadith directly call for hatred and violence against infidels.

        In the mental world of Lynch and her boss, the hateful teachings and calls for violence at the heart of Islam aren’t really hate speech; they’re just religion. What they regard as “hate speech” is calling attention to the Islamic jihad doctrine and Islamic curses on infidels.

        Lynch and her boss don’t want to silence Islamic hate-speech. They want to silence Islam-critics.

          Milhouse in reply to Radegunda. | December 8, 2015 at 7:55 am

          Lynch and her boss don’t like the mosque surveillance.

          Indeed they don’t, but I assume everyone here does. I certainly do. But it’s impossible to support such surveillance while at the same time believing that it’s not OK for the authorities to investigate speech they don’t like. Either investigating speech is OK or it isn’t. Make up your mind.

        Radegunda in reply to Milhouse. | December 7, 2015 at 6:17 pm

        When we start to see a worldwide pattern of daily violence by Islam-critics against Muslims, maybe we could talk about a parallel. As of now, there is none.

    gwsjr425 in reply to Milhouse. | December 7, 2015 at 3:51 pm

    You can spin it anyway you want, she along with the entire democrat party is looking to silence the opposition. The fact that she use the term “hate speech” in her comments should tell anyone with two functioning brain cells that ANY form of criticism will not be tolerated.

    Tell us, in this day and age when criticizing Obama policy is considered racism, who is going to decide what is considered “hate speech”. Those same people?

      Milhouse in reply to gwsjr425. | December 7, 2015 at 5:32 pm

      Tell me what legal action is taken against those who criticise the president, or those who engage in open racism. The answer, of course, is none. So why do you suspect that Lynch is suddenly threatening legal action against speech?

    snopercod in reply to Milhouse. | December 7, 2015 at 4:04 pm

    Are you still not banned yet?

    Mihouse, being Lorett’a Lynch Mob is okay with you, we’re going to have you prosecuted for your speech. Then you can all Euguene Volokh to defend you.

    Hope you can afford him. Oh, by the way: you may lose and wind up in prison.

    But that’s okay with you.

      You’re a damned liar. Yo’re lying about Lynch and you’re lying about me. I have ever supported prosecuting anyone for speech, and you know it but choose to lie.

      Oh, and in the event of such a prosecution I would have my pick of pro bono legal representation. I’d also bring an action against you for malicious prosecution, and take your house if you have one.

Islam is predicated on Jew hatred, and Christians are thrown into that lot as basically a Jewish sect, another “People of the Book”. When Mohammed marched to Medina, which then was inhabited by Jews, he took over by force, and slaughtered the clans there who would not submit to him. The “religion” as recited by the Koran constitutes the ravings of a hate-filled megalomaniac and con man.

A devout Muslim who “prays” five times a day recites filth in Arabic against Jews and Christians seventeen times over the course of that day.

It is long past the time for people to educate themselves on the Koran, especially our apologists in government and the media.

Read “The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Koran”, by Robert Spencer. Read the writings of Muslim Reza Aslan (so you can see that the websites such as and http://www. are telling the truth). Read the Koran. Lean about the concept of “abrogation” by which earlier verses are superseded by more pugilistic and hate-filled verses that were written later.

There is no excuse for the pretending at this point. Speaking out against Islam is not “discrimination”, religious or racial. Being Muslim is not an immutable characteristic, but is a CHOICE, no different from the choice to be a Nazi or to join the KKK.

Milhouse “The threat to prosecute speech did not exist”

Please stop spinning. You look ridiculous and you still have some credibility left here. What she said was:

“but when it edges towards violence, when we see the potential for someone lifting that mantle of anti-Muslim rhetoric or, as we saw after 9/11, violence against individuals… when we see that, we will take action.”

edges toward… potential for…

If I am “edging toward violence” am I actually engaging in violence. Nope.

If my words have a “potential” to incite violence, are they actually inciting violence? Nope.

    Paul in reply to Fen. | December 7, 2015 at 3:44 pm

    She also said “Since 9/11 we’ve had over 1,000 investigations into acts of anti-muslim hatred, including rhetoric….”

    Milhouse in reply to Fen. | December 7, 2015 at 5:35 pm

    If you are edging towards violence, it’s worth keeping an eye on you in case you go over that edge, and taking action if and when you do. And that’s the case whether you’re an imam preaching against infidels, or a blogger preaching against Moslems.

“When we talk about the First amendment we [must] make it clear that actions predicated on violent talk are not American. They are not who we are, they are not what we do, and they will be prosecuted.”

Where in the quote above does she talk about “deeds”?? The first amendment is about FREE SPEECH…hence violent talk is speech…not a deed….She did not misspeak..she just got called out on her asnine statement

She’s a fat, black conga-monger.

    Go back to whatever rock you crawled out from under. The adults here can find a thousand and one ways to legitimately criticize the Attorney General’s latest gaffe without resorting to race-based slurs.

Mystifying why the rants and threats so freely made public by the BLM, Panthers, LGBT, Anti-Semites, SJW, and other Soros-funded peoples are not considered hateful and criminal when negative expressions about Muslims and Islam are to be forbidden.

The hypocrisy and double-standards of this administration stink of Fascism.

    Under the Obama administration, I can’t think of a single government department that hasn’t been weaponized and turned against “the enemy” (i.e., us).

    As Glenn Reynolds likes to point out every so often, Reminder: In 2009, President Barack Obama “Joked” About Auditing His Enemies.

    Milhouse in reply to clafoutis. | December 7, 2015 at 5:39 pm

    “Negative expressions about Muslims and Islam” are not to be forbidden. Neither Lynch nor anybody else in the administration has ever said they would be. The only people claiming this are paranoid commentators and rabble-rousers.

      Ragspierre in reply to Milhouse. | December 7, 2015 at 6:09 pm

      Much as I love your contrarian self often, you’re just wrong here.

      Lynch…like Obama…was throwing high inside fast balls at the American people, brushing them back off the plate in a VERY overt and concerted way.

      Sure, LEOs SHOULD look at speech from ANYBODY that might be directly tied to a violent or destructive act.

      They ALSO should stfu about it, BECAUSE it has a chilling effect on free speech AND it undermines the REAL investigation of such.

        JimMtnViewCaUSA in reply to Ragspierre. | December 8, 2015 at 1:46 pm

        How come only Muslims get this high-profile protetion and warnings?
        “It should be noted that Lynch failed to issue a similar vow when a group of protesters marched through the streets of New York City, chanting: “What do we want?” “Dead cops.” When do we want them?” Now!”

        Was that chant “violence-inspiring speech”?
        Or, what about those who stood with bullhorns in the streets of Ferguson, Missouri, as rocks and Molotov cocktails were thrown while businesses were looted and burned?”

        I don’t see Lynch throwing any verbal punches when Dems call Tea Party activists racists and violent extremists. When in fact we’re just people with jobs who pay taxes and speak up about politics part time.

        Dems have weaponized the federal bureaucracy (sometimes literally) and sent them off to harass Dem political opponents. If you don’t have a problem with that you’re part of the problem yourself.

      Loretta Lynch-Mob: “Since 9/11 we’ve had over 1,000 investigations into acts of anti-Muslim hatred, including rhetoric….”

So how about some action by the Justice Department against Muslims helping Muslim terrorists hiding in mosques? They know who’s who and do nothing.

Admin seems to be pushing the “This is not who we are” theme a lot.
Liars aren’t who we are, not sure who they think they are.

Here’s Volokh. Surely he’s good enough for you:

4. Even constitutionally protected speech might lead prosecutors to investigate whether the speaker is planning constitutionally unprotected criminal action or has already committed a crime. “ISIS is doing great work, and I really feel moved to join in that work” is constitutionally protected speech, but prosecutors might reasonably look into just what the speaker has been doing. (For some such investigation, such as wiretaps, they might need probable cause and a warrant; for other investigation, such as following the person or asking around about him, all they’d need is their own hunch.) The same is true of people who say, “All Muslims are terrorists, and I really feel moved to fight back against them.”

You advertisments are crashing my browser again.

Last time this happened, the ads sent malware and corrupted my hard drive. I lost about 2000 hours of work and several pics of friends and family that can’t be replaced (one is deceased). And I had to pop $3k for a new rig.

So again, I ask you to take a serious look at who does your ads here. You give great analysis, but its simply not worth risking all that I lost all over again.

    Barry in reply to Fen. | December 7, 2015 at 10:25 pm

    2000 hours of work lost?

    You do know any sane person backs up that volume of work?

    Miller in reply to Fen. | December 8, 2015 at 9:53 am

    You can buy a new name-brand 4TB internal hard drive for less than $150 on Amazon. That you chose to buy an entire new $3,000 system instead is on you. And nobody but a fool commits 2000 hours of work to a hard drive without backing up at least once a week.

    Malware-containing ads suck. Stupidity sucks more.

    Fen, software malware can’t damage hardware.

    You must have brought your computer to Milhouse to be fixed. In the future. don’t trust anyone under 12 with a repair best left to a competent teenager.

holdingmynose | December 8, 2015 at 6:26 am

Lynch makes outrageous comments while addressing Muslims and media is meh! Trump makes outrageous comments about Muslims and media and Roll-Over Party rivals’ heads explode.

ScottTheEngineer | December 8, 2015 at 11:03 am

$3,000? Holy shit, That thing got a hemi in it?

2nd Ammendment Mother | December 8, 2015 at 12:18 pm

Remind me why the White House sent Lynch to bulldog Comey’s press conference and shut off any press questions afterwards?