The Eleventh Circuit, in a significant decision sure to be very controversial, has struck down a ban on so-called "conversion therapy," a contemptible practice advanced by bigoted crackpots.

/1


media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/f…
/2 The Eleventh Circuit struck the conversion therapy ban down under the First Amendment. This is not a new theory; the Ninth Circuit addressed and rejected a similar attack in 2013.

popehat.com/2013/08/29/nin…
/3 The LEGAL controversy here -- as opposed to the controversy about bigotry and human decency -- revolves around the difference between regulating speech and regulating conduct, and whether there is a "professional speech" exception to the First Amendment.
/4 Different ideological groups can find themselves on different sides of this question in different cases. Note, for example, the cases about stupid "doctors can't ask about guns" laws, which the same court struck down for the same reasons.

popehat.com/2017/02/17/law…
/5 This appears to be a circuit split on an important issue, so it would surprise me to see the matter go to the Supreme Court. I don’t think the current court (or any court of this century) would support a broad “professional speech” exception.
/6 But the "sides" are complicated. "Conservatives" favor intrusive restrictions on doctor speech, and compelled speech, in the case of abortion. "Liberals" don't. So the ideological approach to a "professional speech" category is tangled up.
/7 On the other hand sometimes the compelled speech is PRO-abortion rights. See, for instance, the Ninth Circuit weaving its way through the suggestion that a "professional speech" category justified dictating speech to anti-abortion health clinics.

popehat.com/2016/10/17/law…
/8 The bottom line: any suggestion that the 11th Circuit made up the ruling out of nowhere in a sudden surge of conservative craziness is wrong. Conversion therapy is dangerous and morally reprehensible but First Amendment challenges to bans on it are plausible under the law.
/9 So, in watching for coverage of this, distinguish between what people believe the law should be and analysis of what it is, and don't confuse them. Also, bear in mind that the First Amendment routinely protects absolutely contemptible speech.
/coda

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with MichiganOrPossiblyMinnesotaHat

MichiganOrPossiblyMinnesotaHat Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @Popehat

19 Nov
Counsel: Objection, lack of foundation
Judge: What's the foundation, counsel
Trumplawyer: [looking at concrete tile floor] . . . . wood?

#TrumpLawyering
Counsel: Objection, relevance!
Judge: What's your theory of relevance counsel
Trumplawyer: Well Your Honor my theory of relevance is that when something is relevant it should be evidence
Judge: . . . .
Trumplawyer: In fact it's a RULE

#Trumplawyering
Judge: . . . . and replies will be due by end of day Friday. Waive notice?
Defense: Notice waived.
Judge: Counsel, waive notice?
Trumplawyer: . . .
Judge: . . .
Trumplawyer: [slowwwly picks up his schedule notes and waves them back and forth in front of judge]
#Trumplawyering
Read 5 tweets
19 Nov
The ongoing series of petty mistakes Team Trump is making in the Pennsylvania case before Judge Brann are characteristic of lawyers who don't know what they are doing trying to do it anyway under pressure.

/2 As I discussed with @ProfTolson today on the show (podcast dropping soon), the gulf between the immense, historical [alleged] stakes in these cases, and the shocking lack of marginal adequacy displayed by many of the lawyers, strong suggests that legal victory is not the goal.
/3 There are hordes of very competent conservative lawyers, plenty of whom are willing to do evil for pay or for fame. But they're mostly not on these cases. These are not your starting players. These are the guys who quit the job as mascot because the suit was "real itchy."
Read 4 tweets
18 Nov
No, I have no sympathy to Emily Murphy, whose craven behavior will likely cost lives and undermine American security. /1

cnn.com/2020/11/18/pol…
/2 This is the relevant language for Ms. Murphy under the Presidential Transition Act of 1963 — she has discretion to “ascertain” whether Biden is “apparent[ly] successful.” Nobody else has that discretion. She’s making a choice. The choice undermines her country. Image
/3 Her sympathizers suggest she is somehow bound to act as she is. It’s a lie. The law gives her the power to make this determination. She hasn’t failed to act; she has affirmatively acted, accepting the mad-emperor-pleasing fiction that Biden was not “apparently successful.”
Read 4 tweets
17 Nov
Heard the "3,999 on the call" announcement, but now just silence. Bummer. The dark angel of tech visits me again.
Seems like quite a few people on the call heard the "you are now joining the conference" message and then only silence, like me. Pity. Oh well. There's a number of other people livetweeting it.
Read 114 tweets
16 Nov
NANCY PELOSI: This meeting will come to order. At long last, the plan is complete. We have put into motion our plan to destroy Western Civilization.

BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA: Praise Allah!

KAMALA HARRIS: FINally. [rolls eyes]

@jaketapper: WHOOOOOOOOOO [plays air guitar badly]
/1
/2 POPE FRANCIS: How are we doing it, dark mistress?

PELOSI: We're putting Harry Styles on the cover of Vogue.

POPE FRANCIS: . . . . and?

NANCY PELOSI: In. A. DRESS.

OBAMA: Who again?

PELOSI: Harry Styles.

JOE BIDEN: IS THAT THE FELLER FROM THE GONG SHOW?
/3 PELOSI: No . . . No Joe. I think you're thinking of Soupy Sales.

BIDEN: SOUPY SALES. THERE WAS A REAL HORSE-SLAPPER.

PELOSI: . . . yes. Okay, anyway, after the collapse, we will .

BIDEN: A GEN-U-INE TWENTY-THREE SKIDOO'ER.

PELOSI: [rubbing temples] Joe, I . . .
Read 10 tweets
16 Nov
I WON THE ELECTION
I WON THE ELECTION
I WON THE ELECTION
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!