Columnist Noah Feldman argues in the Oct. 15 Plain Dealer “ If ‘conversion therapy’ is free speech, what isn’t? ,” regarding the Colorado law now before the Supreme Court in Chiles v. Salazar. He defends that law as regulating “professional conduct that happens to be achieved through speech.”

As an example, he cites laws that forbid “a materially false statement in conjunction with the sale of a security.” But those laws are intended to protect third parties. None of them prohibits advice requested for a person’s own benefit. The Supreme Court has held that the First Amendment protects listeners as well as speakers. Colorado’s law differs from other such laws, as it prevents patients from receiving advice they badly want.

Colorado’s law is also content-based; it favors one side in a po

See Full Page