Free Speech or Harmful Practice: The Conversion Therapy Debate

The Supreme Court recently discussed whether a Colorado law that prohibits conversion therapy infringes on the First Amendment. This law aims to stop counselors from trying to change a person's sexual orientation, but some argue it's a form of free speech. Conversion therapy, as practiced by counselor Kaley Chiles, involves no medical procedures. Instead, it focuses on conversations, reflection, and prayer to help individuals address their sexual identity. Chiles, a devout Christian, believes that her method is about guiding people through dialogue, similar to how one might address addiction or eating disorders. Critics argue that conversion therapy can cause psychological harm by pressuring individuals to deny their true selves. Over 20 states have banned it, and while Arizona's legislature did not pass a ban, Governor Katie Hobbs issued an executive order in 2023 to prevent state agencies from funding it. The core issue is whether conversion therapy is a form of speech or a harmful practice. Supporters of the ban argue that it is not about censoring speech but about preventing malpractice. They use the "professional speech" theory, which suggests that the government can regulate how professionals advise their clients because advising is an activity, not speech. However, this theory is flawed. Advising is fundamentally about communication, and the Constitution protects all forms of speech, regardless of the speaker's profession. If the government can regulate the speech of professionals, it could also restrict the speech of anyone offering advice, including clergy members. The "professional speech" theory has another odd consequence: it allows the government to restrict the speech of trained professionals more than the speech of untrained individuals. This inconsistency undermines the principle of free speech, which should protect all communication, whether from experts or laypeople. The Supreme Court has not endorsed the "professional speech" theory, and in 2018, it clarified that speech is not unprotected merely because it comes from professionals. Despite this, an appeals court upheld Colorado's law, arguing that it regulates professional conduct and only incidentally involves speech. This reasoning is misleading because speech is central to conversion therapy. This debate is not just a liberal or conservative issue. Conservative lawmakers have also used the "professional speech" theory to pass laws restricting doctors from asking about gun ownership and mandating ultrasounds before abortions. Both of these laws were later declared unconstitutional. When the government controls speech, it sets a dangerous precedent. The Constitution protects all communication, even if it is offensive or potentially harmful. Instead of silencing opposing views, society should engage in open dialogue and persuade each other through free speech.