Matt Walsh

So she's just coming out and saying it.

In her view, regulators should be able to choose sides in an ideological dispute and force everyone else to agree with them.

In her view, that doesn't amount to a First Amendment violation somehow.

Let's continue.

Quote, in my view, it is obvious that the minor conversion therapy law is regulating professional conduct insofar as it prohibits providing a particular therapy.

The aim of the statute is not suppressing speech.

So in other words, she's saying that even though the Colorado government is explicitly banning speech by outlawing so-called conversion therapy, nevertheless,

Colorado isn't actually suppressing speech.

And that's because, according to Contancia Brown Jackson, the government is only banning speech in the context of some other conduct, which is the talk therapy session.

So really, as Jackson understands the situation, the government of Colorado is banning conduct, not speech.

She thinks the ban on speech is incidental to the ban on conducting therapy sessions in a certain way.

Now, let's think about this for a second.

Every form of speech involves some kind of conduct in addition to the speech.

If you send an email or post a tweet, you're engaging in both conduct and speech at the same time.

Sitting in a chair, typing on a keyboard, looking at a screen on a computer or on your phone, all of that behavior amounts to conduct that's occurring alongside your speech.

Speech is conduct.

But by the same token, if you go to a protest and wave a sign around, you're engaging in both speech and conduct.

You're saying things, but you're also waving a sign.

You're walking on the sidewalk and so on.

And this goes for all forms of speech.