Good thread on today's 11th Cir. decision holding, 2-1, that a city and county's prohibition on conversion therapy for minors violates the First Amendment.
Decision here: media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/f…
Thread here -->
Decision here: media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/f…
Thread here -->
https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1329844303988887552
There is a circuit split on the question of what speech restrictions you can impose on medical providers (or so-called medical providers in the case of conversion therapy practitioners).
But this is not, as some hysterically bad legal commentators would tell you, a new thing.
But this is not, as some hysterically bad legal commentators would tell you, a new thing.
The same issue arose in the context of whether doctors can be forbidden from inquiring whether you own guns.
And the script got flipped a few years ago when California forced pro-life pregnancy centers to talk about abortion.
And the script got flipped a few years ago when California forced pro-life pregnancy centers to talk about abortion.
Dissenting Judge Martin's opinion is interesting in that it doesn't dally with the run-around that the ordinance is regulating conduct rather than speech.
She just says, sure, it's speech, and analyzes it under strict scrutiny. Bold.
She just says, sure, it's speech, and analyzes it under strict scrutiny. Bold.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
