Matt Walsh

I mean, you're trying to convert a patient from a bad mental state to a good one, from a sort of bad way of thinking about things to a better and healthier way of thinking about things and thinking about themselves and the world.

That's all therapy.

But in Colorado, this conversion was only allowed to go one way.

It was perfectly legal in Colorado for therapists to encourage patients to identify as some other gender, but it wasn't acceptable for therapists to encourage patients to accept reality.

Just so there's no confusion about this, I'm gonna quote from the text of the Colorado law that the Supreme Court just struck down.

This is what conversion therapy actually means from a legal perspective.

This is what the left is demonizing.

Conversion therapy, according to Colorado, is quote, any practice or treatment that attempts to change an individual's sexual orientation or gender identity, as well as any effort

to change behaviors or gender expressions, or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions towards individuals of the same sex.

And at the same time, the law also allows counselors to provide, quote, acceptance, support, and understanding for identity exploration and development, and to assist persons undergoing gender transition.

So the pro-trans conversions are totally fine, in other words, as long as they're pro-trans.

It's only the conversions that bring them back to reality that are the problem.

Now, under the First Amendment, this is clearly unconstitutional.

The government doesn't get to prevent people from saying things the government doesn't agree with, especially when those things are obviously true.

It doesn't matter if those people are licensed counselors or therapists or anyone else.

The First Amendment applies to every American.

As the majority opinion put it, quote, the First Amendment stands as a bulwark against any effort to prescribe an orthodoxy of views reflecting a belief that each American enjoys an inalienable right to speak his mind in a faith in the free marketplace of ideas as the best means for finding truth.

Laws like Colorado's, which suppress speech based on viewpoint, represent an egregious assault on both commitments.

It doesn't matter if the government thinks that the world would be a better place if certain people weren't allowed to speak.

Unless someone is committing a very specific offense like fraud or defamation or making a credible and direct threat of harm to someone, then the government has to stay out of it.