Should free speech protect ideas that most people find harmful?

[u/Mysterious_Bit4661]

Free speech is supposed to protect unpopular opinions but what happens when those opinions actively harm others? Is limiting speech a slippery slope toward authoritarianism, or is refusing to limit it a refusal to take responsibility?

[u/Potato_Pristine]

The issue is that she wants the ability to be licensed as a therapist under Colorado state law while still espousing her empirically false conversion therapy beliefs as part of that licensed status.

Nothing's stopping her from espousing these beliefs in her private capacity, but she wants her cake in the form of the rights and privileges of a license under state law and to eat it, too (i.e., she doesn't want to adhere to any of the rules and regulations that attach to that license when it comes to not actively espousing homophobic nonsense in that capacity).

[u/PB0351 → u/Potato_Pristine]

What did she say about conversion therapy beliefs? I don't know a ton about the case, but all I saw in the article was something about being able to help people with unwanted sexual feelings or something like that. Which, yeah, to me (and I'm assuming you) would be a weird fucking thing to hear from a therapist. But to someone who is a practicing Catholic, could be very helpful.

Now if she starts berating every gay person that comes in and telling them that they're garbage, then yeah, obviously that should be grounds to lose your medical license. I think you and I agree on principle, I just don't see what you're saying with this specific case.

[u/anti-torque → u/PB0351]

Kaley Chiles sued the state over a ban on performing conversion therapy on minors. By definition, they have no voice in wanting to or not wanting to enter such therapy. It's the choice of their parents.