SCOTUS is leaning toward a ruling that torture of children is protected free speech.
They are currently considering the case of a Christian therapist who claims that a Colorado ban on the scientifically discredited conversion therapy for children violates her free speech and causes her "irreparable harm."
The scientific consensus overwhelmingly rejects the discredited technique as ineffective and dangerous, increasing the risk of causing PTSD and suicidality among patients, particularly children. Bans on the treatment are supported by the American Medical Association and the American Psychiatric Association and many other professional organizations.
@MikeDunnAuthor that misses the argument here.
It's NOT that torture is protected free speech but that talking to people is not torture.
As for the science, it's not the role of the Court to judge science. They're experts on law, not science, and often times poor results come out of courts wading into matters of science.
The Court is to apply the law as they receive it.
@volkris the treatment is not actually a therapy. It's pseudo science and thoroughly discredited.
While the plaintiff is claiming that she just "talks" to patients, the treatment has been defined as torture by numerous health and human rights groups.
For these reasons, it has been banned in 34 states and in many countries. Banned not because a particular view point or protected free speech is being suppressed, but because the treatment doesn't work and causes considerable harm
@MikeDunnAuthor You're still missing the argument.
Pseudoscience? Discredited? Completely lacking in any sort of scientific rigor or positive outcomes or on and on and on?
None of that matters in the slightest because they aren't questions of law.
Again, it is not the role of the Court to judge science or medicine. Its job is to speak on matters of law, not science or medicine.
If we would like to amend the US Constitution to permit legislation restricting speech on account of International consensus that it's bad, we can do that. But until we do, the Court is bound to rule on the law as it stands, not as we would prefer it, even if we think our preferred law would better promote science and all kinds of other good social things.
That's why we have an amendment process.
