US Court Rules First Amendment Protects Conversion Therapy

[Genivaria]

I meant it should be legal if the kid agrees to it.

Do you think it should be legal for a kid to be a prostitute if they agree to it?

That would also be unethical yes, and also a felony for everyone involved.

[Page]

The First Amendment has nothing to do with abuse and manipulation. You can stand on a soap box in the park every day and preach about whatever you want but if you use words to emotionally destroy a child, that isn't free speech.

As I responded to Neutraligon, I states they should be tried as others who misinforms

It's not a matter of misinformation, it's a matter of abuse. Telling someone they can change their sexual orientation is misinformation but trying to make them do it is abuse.

[Necroghastia]

How about if we had gay conversion therapy, in which we convince straight people to become gay through these same verbal methods. Would this sit well with you?

Why would anyone want to become gay?

Gays are better at memes.

[Xelsis]

The same people who call conversion therapy, and we are talking about the kind that is just that, simply talking, 'torture', tend to be the same people who think it is perfectly acceptable to provide permanently body-altering hormones to children under the age of consent.

The law that was struck down explicitly provides an exception to allow for counselling to "provide assistance" to "undergoing gender transition". That, more than anything else, is 'conversion therapy.'

You're trying to equate pseudo-science to accepted and proven science.
So called 'conversion therapy' is pseudo-science.

That would be a definite citation needed on "accepted and proven science." We are talking about something that was officially in the DSM-IV this very decade before removal due to political lobbying.

The same people who call conversion therapy, and we are talking about the kind that is just that, simply talking, 'torture', tend to be the same people who think it is perfectly acceptable to provide permanently body-altering hormones to children under the age of consent.

The law that was struck down explicitly provides an exception to allow for counselling to "provide assistance" to "undergoing gender transition". That, more than anything else, is 'conversion therapy.'

Got any citations for anyone who advocates forcefully injecting minors with hormones? Because no one I know of in my circle would support that either, but I still think conversion therapy is torture. So am I a statistical outlier or are you just making up a strawman?

How about if we had gay conversion therapy, in which we convince straight people to become gay through these same verbal methods. Would this sit well with you?

I'm shocked that you're not aware of it in that case, gender-transition hormones being given to children under the age of consent it outright "common" at this point, here from a sympathetic source:

"Until recently, hormones were typically not prescribed until age 16; it’s now more common for 15- and 14-year-olds, and sometimes even younger kids, to begin hormone therapy."
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/ar ... ns/561749/

Neither strawman nor statistical outlier, but common.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

You think it should be legal to force a child into a situation where they will be caused long lasting psychological harm?

I meant it should be legal if the kid agrees to it.

You think brainwashing a kid should be legal if the kid says yes?

[Romextly]

As I stated before, they should be clear on what they are doing, or else they are doing fraud and should be tried as a normal person who misinforms people of their product

So by this logic, if I advertise my services as a programmer and I promise to make a computer "run 10% more efficiently" and then I accomplish this by deleting the majority of the data on the hard-drive, then I'm not doing something unethical? Because I never explicitly lied, a computer will run faster if you give it more data to work with

You literally just said the opposite of what I meant

[Esalia]

Minors generally can't consent.

Then the government should protect the kids decision

By making it illegal to use conversion therapy on minors.

[Geneviev]

Adults can do what they want. But children should not be subjected to anything like conversion therapy. They're children.

[Galloism]

Reading the case it looks like it's the carveout in the law that's causing the court to go against this. Because the ordinance is not content neutral.

They reference heavily where doctors in Florida were prohibited to ask their patients if they owned guns, and that rule was struck down - because the doctor could ask if the patient owned anything else, IE, a dresser, or a scythe. Therefore, this was a restriction on the content of the doctor's speech - not a regulation on the practice of medicine per se.

Here, we have a similar thing. The ordinance restricted counseling based on the content. Counseling someone to try and "push" them into being gay was explicitly protected by law, while counseling someone to try and "push" them to be straight was explicitly banned by law. This means you cannot know if they broke the law or not without analyzing the content of their speech, and this means it gets strict scrutiny by law.

To help understand why this line was struck, imagine two laws:

1) Gathering of persons over 25 is barred within 100 feet of an abortion clinic
2) Gathering of persons over 25 is barred within 100 feet of an abortion clinic if they are pro-choice protestors

The first one is a general restriction on groups, and would likely face intermediate scrutiny. The second one is a regulation of content and thus receives strict scrutiny.

[Esalia]

How about if we had gay conversion therapy, in which we convince straight people to become gay through these same verbal methods. Would this sit well with you?

Why would anyone want to become gay?

Be gay, do crime.

[Romextly]

Why would anyone want to become gay?

Be gay, do crime.

What? Being gay doesn't make you a criminal or more likely to commit a crime.

[Tsaivao]

So by this logic, if I advertise my services as a programmer and I promise to make a computer "run 10% more efficiently" and then I accomplish this by deleting the majority of the data on the hard-drive, then I'm not doing something unethical? Because I never explicitly lied, a computer will run faster if you give it more data to work with

You literally just said the opposite of what I meant

But the people performing conversion therapy aren't misinforming people and committing fraud? You can't just change someone's sexuality for them, that's not something that can be done.

How about if we had gay conversion therapy, in which we convince straight people to become gay through these same verbal methods. Would this sit well with you?

Why would anyone want to become gay?

Why would anyone want to become straight?

[Neutraligon]

Reading the case it looks like it's the carveout in the law that's causing the court to go against this. Because the ordinance is not content neutral.

They reference heavily where doctors in Florida were prohibited to ask their patients if they owned guns, and that rule was struck down - because the doctor could ask if the patient owned anything else, IE, a dresser, or a scythe. Therefore, this was a restriction on the content of the doctor's speech - not a regulation on the practice of medicine per se.

Here, we have a similar thing. The ordinance restricted counseling based on the content. Counseling someone to try and "push" them into being gay was explicitly protected by law, while counseling someone to try and "push" them to be straight was explicitly banned by law. This means you cannot know if they broke the law or not without analyzing the content of their speech, and this means it gets strict scrutiny by law.

To help understand why this line was struck, imagine two laws:

1) Gathering of persons over 25 is barred within 100 feet of an abortion clinic
2) Gathering of persons over 25 is barred within 100 feet of an abortion clinic if they are pro-choice protestors

The first one is a general restriction on groups, and would likely face intermediate scrutiny. The second one is a regulation of content and thus receives strict scrutiny.

So what does this mean for the actual law banning conversion therapy on minors?

[Bluepillar]

Don't, like, 50% of children that undergo conversion therapy commit suicide within the first two weeks?

yeah. Not a fan haha. There are way too many cases of this totally destroying people for me to be comfortable with it.

[Greed and Death]

For those wondering this is only about talk only therapy.

So electrocuting your kids for being turned on while looking at members of the same sex is still banned as are the other medieval cures that have been created.

[Geneviev]

Why would anyone want to become gay?

Why would anyone want to become straight?

I'm not saying that it's a good thing, but there are reasons that someone might want to become straight.

[Page]

Reading the case it looks like it's the carveout in the law that's causing the court to go against this. Because the ordinance is not content neutral.

They reference heavily where doctors in Florida were prohibited to ask their patients if they owned guns, and that rule was struck down - because the doctor could ask if the patient owned anything else, IE, a dresser, or a scythe. Therefore, this was a restriction on the content of the doctor's speech - not a regulation on the practice of medicine per se.

Here, we have a similar thing. The ordinance restricted counseling based on the content. Counseling someone to try and "push" them into being gay was explicitly protected by law, while counseling someone to try and "push" them to be straight was explicitly banned by law. This means you cannot know if they broke the law or not without analyzing the content of their speech, and this means it gets strict scrutiny by law.

To help understand why this line was struck, imagine two laws:

1) Gathering of persons over 25 is barred within 100 feet of an abortion clinic
2) Gathering of persons over 25 is barred within 100 feet of an abortion clinic if they are pro-choice protestors

The first one is a general restriction on groups, and would likely face intermediate scrutiny. The second one is a regulation of content and thus receives strict scrutiny.

I haven't heard of anyone pushing people to be gay, but are you saying that if the law instead said it was forbidden to try to change someone's sexual orientation or gender identity rather than specifying it's forbidden to try to make a gay person straight or a trans person cis, then it would be okay?

[Galloism]

Reading the case it looks like it's the carveout in the law that's causing the court to go against this. Because the ordinance is not content neutral.

They reference heavily where doctors in Florida were prohibited to ask their patients if they owned guns, and that rule was struck down - because the doctor could ask if the patient owned anything else, IE, a dresser, or a scythe. Therefore, this was a restriction on the content of the doctor's speech - not a regulation on the practice of medicine per se.

Here, we have a similar thing. The ordinance restricted counseling based on the content. Counseling someone to try and "push" them into being gay was explicitly protected by law, while counseling someone to try and "push" them to be straight was explicitly banned by law. This means you cannot know if they broke the law or not without analyzing the content of their speech, and this means it gets strict scrutiny by law.

To help understand why this line was struck, imagine two laws:

1) Gathering of persons over 25 is barred within 100 feet of an abortion clinic
2) Gathering of persons over 25 is barred within 100 feet of an abortion clinic if they are pro-choice protestors

The first one is a general restriction on groups, and would likely face intermediate scrutiny. The second one is a regulation of content and thus receives strict scrutiny.

So what does this mean for the actual law banning conversion therapy on minors?

Basically, they either need to create a content neutral law (banning counseling on gender and orientation generally), or such counselings can proceed.

It doesn't mean people are pulling out the car batteries again.

[Romextly]

You literally just said the opposite of what I meant

But the people performing conversion therapy aren't misinforming people and committing fraud? You can't just change someone's sexuality for them, that's not something that can be done.[quote="Disgraces";p="37984820"][quote="Tsaivao";p="37984776"]
If they openly state that they will try to get the person straight and have a explicit document telling the minor what the goal is, that isn't misinforming as they are saying what they will do

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

For those wondering this is only about talk only therapy.

Brainwashing is still immoral as fuck.

[Tsaivao]

For those wondering this is only about talk only therapy.

So electrocuting your kids for being turned on while looking at members of the same sex is still banned as are the other medieval cures that have been created.

Verbal abuse is still abuse. You can traumatize people with words the same way you can with an iron rod, it's just harder to see the side-effects of it.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

For those wondering this is only about talk only therapy.

So electrocuting your kids for being turned on while looking at members of the same sex is still banned as are the other medieval cures that have been created.

Verbal abuse is still abuse. You can traumatize people with words the same way you can with an iron rod, it's just harder to see the side-effects of it.

Let's call it for what it is: Brainwashing.

[Greed and Death]

Reading the case it looks like it's the carveout in the law that's causing the court to go against this. Because the ordinance is not content neutral.

They reference heavily where doctors in Florida were prohibited to ask their patients if they owned guns, and that rule was struck down - because the doctor could ask if the patient owned anything else, IE, a dresser, or a scythe. Therefore, this was a restriction on the content of the doctor's speech - not a regulation on the practice of medicine per se.

Here, we have a similar thing. The ordinance restricted counseling based on the content. Counseling someone to try and "push" them into being gay was explicitly protected by law, while counseling someone to try and "push" them to be straight was explicitly banned by law. This means you cannot know if they broke the law or not without analyzing the content of their speech, and this means it gets strict scrutiny by law.

To help understand why this line was struck, imagine two laws:

1) Gathering of persons over 25 is barred within 100 feet of an abortion clinic
2) Gathering of persons over 25 is barred within 100 feet of an abortion clinic if they are pro-choice protestors

The first one is a general restriction on groups, and would likely face intermediate scrutiny. The second one is a regulation of content and thus receives strict scrutiny.

So what does this mean for the actual law banning conversion therapy on minors?

As long as it is talking only therapy it is allowed. The second it takes a step towards medieval torture it is stilled banned.

[Bluepillar]

Be gay, do crime.

What? Being gay doesn't make you a criminal or more likely to commit a crime.

Do you even know any gay people? This is an ancient meme.

[Disgraces]

Why would anyone want to become gay?

Why would anyone want to become straight?

Because it's the way humans are supposed to be.