In recent decades, conservative Republicans have largely rejected the idea of curtailing “hate” speech, which made it all the more notable when Attorney General Pam Bondi broached the subject on a conservative podcast this week.

“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,” the nation’s chief law enforcement official said, referring to the killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. Asked about the potential consequences for those using hate speech, Bondi added: “We will absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech.”

The attorney general didn’t explain what she sees as the difference between “free speech” and “hate speech,” which was unfortunate because if she intends to use the Justice Department and federal prosecutors to “go after” those using “hate speech,” it’s pretty important to know what exactly that means.

As a legal matter, Bondi didn’t appear to have any idea what she was talking about. As my MSNBC colleague Jordan Rubin explained, “[T]he legal fact remains that there’s no hate speech exception to the First Amendment.”

The fact that the attorney general got this wrong, Rubin added, leads one to wonder “what other errors might she be making when it comes to the range of crucial matters that face the Justice Department every day.”

What’s more, let’s also not forget that Bondi appeared to be positioning herself against the Trump administration’s own line: Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio have spent much of the year pushing back against Europe’s hate speech laws, insisting that “censorship is not freedom.”

For that matter, even Kirk himself argued last year, “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.”

How does Bondi reconcile her position and her apparent plans with her own party’s orthodoxy on the underlying issue? For now, we don’t know, but if she’s serious about “targeting” and “going after” those who say things that meet her undefined standards of “hate,” these questions will need answers.

Complicating matters further, the day after the attorney general opened a provocative door, ABC News’ Jonathan Karl asked Donald Trump about Bondi’s comments.

“We’ll probably go after people like you,” the president replied, “because you treat me so unfairly.” The Republican quickly added, “It’s hate. You have a lot of hate in your heart. Maybe they’ll have to go after ABC.”

Oh. So, the day after the nation’s attorney general said she plans to use federal law enforcement to go after speech she considers “hateful,” the sitting American president suggested “hate speech” cases could include going after journalists over reports the White House doesn’t like.

There was some political conversation a few years ago after the Republican Party tried to position itself as “the party of free speech.” There’s a reason those who espoused such a position have grown awfully quiet lately.