> An 8-1 high court majority sided with a Christian counselor who argues the law banning talk therapy violates the First Amendment. The justices agreed that the law raises free speech concerns and sent it back to a lower court to decide if it meets a legal standard that few laws pass.
> Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the court, said the law “censors speech based on viewpoint.” The First Amendment, he wrote, “stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech in this country.”
One, they sent it back down for review, not struck it down completely.
Two, it looks like the courts are arguing you need to ban all forms of talk therapy related to LGBT issues or allow them all, not ban one side.
Three, only seems to apply to “talk therapy.”
Four, it was a 8-1, so even the lib justices believe Colorado’s law was just badly written.
Colorado will most likely just alter the law.
textualcanon on
Correct decision, evidenced by the 8-1 ruling. You can be against conversion therapy and still recognize that the law is bad.
TheRealEzraKlein on
Raises interesting question for malpractice suits/disciplinary procedures for professions that rely heavily on speech, such as medicine and law.
Assume a doctor tells a patient that, in their belief, vaccines cause autism and aren’t worth taking. The patient subsequently dies. Would a malpractice suit run afoul of the First Amendment?
3 Comments
> An 8-1 high court majority sided with a Christian counselor who argues the law banning talk therapy violates the First Amendment. The justices agreed that the law raises free speech concerns and sent it back to a lower court to decide if it meets a legal standard that few laws pass.
> Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the court, said the law “censors speech based on viewpoint.” The First Amendment, he wrote, “stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech in this country.”
One, they sent it back down for review, not struck it down completely.
Two, it looks like the courts are arguing you need to ban all forms of talk therapy related to LGBT issues or allow them all, not ban one side.
Three, only seems to apply to “talk therapy.”
Four, it was a 8-1, so even the lib justices believe Colorado’s law was just badly written.
Colorado will most likely just alter the law.
Correct decision, evidenced by the 8-1 ruling. You can be against conversion therapy and still recognize that the law is bad.
Raises interesting question for malpractice suits/disciplinary procedures for professions that rely heavily on speech, such as medicine and law.
Assume a doctor tells a patient that, in their belief, vaccines cause autism and aren’t worth taking. The patient subsequently dies. Would a malpractice suit run afoul of the First Amendment?