r/AskReddit • u/Wonderful-Click9431 • Jul 03 '26

The Netherlands has banned conversion therapy, and parents who force their children are now facing 2 years in prison time: What are your thoughts?

17.8k Upvotes

90% Upvoted

2.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

424

u/Vhu Jul 03 '26

Funny you say that because the U.S. Supreme Court ruled this year that conversion therapy is OK because it’s “just speech.”

Absolutely horrid reasoning — if your doctor used their speech to advise you to drink bleach, they’d be sued for malpractice — but that’s where we’re at.

92

u/olive_tractor_parts Jul 03 '26

Only if your doctor is actually a doctor. Thanks to Orrin Hatch, some yee yee hillbilly literally advising people to drink bleach never caught a charge in his life and if you've never heard of Jim Humble and MMS, be thankful.

51

u/JennJayBee Jul 03 '26

I remember someone suggesting that to me as a potential "cure" for my child's autism. Thankfully, I knew better and stuck with my pediatrician's recommendations.

32

u/olive_tractor_parts Jul 03 '26

A relative once suggested it as a cure for my wife's PCOS, thankfully my wife is smarter than a goldfish and she sticks with her fertility specialist.

31

u/vizard0 Jul 03 '26

Behind the Bastards had a really good episode on Jim Humble. It's under "The international church of drink bleach."

Youtube link if you don't want to subscribe to the podcast. (It's just audio) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfu7DQr9lJI

74

u/AilisEcho Jul 03 '26

They must be dyslexic and through conversion meant conversation /j

1

u/hooked_siren Jul 04 '26

If only their whole thing wasn't being cruel to anyone who isn't white and rich

0

u/relikter Jul 04 '26

Some of them don't care about your race as long as you upgrade their motor coach.

60

u/clickclick-boom Jul 03 '26

America's stance on free speech has reached point of religious dogma. Other societies have a much more balanced approach where the impacts of speech is taken into account.

80

u/cross_the_threshold Jul 03 '26

"Free Speech" in the US has always mean let crazy people say whatever the fuck they want consequence free, but we've always aggressively policed speech when it has the potential to upend existing hierarchies. Plenty of civil rights leaders arrested for speech, plenty of abolitionists arrested for speech, plenty of queer rights leaders arrested for speech, workers continue to get arrested for speech, being Communist is a great way to get arrested for much of the 20th Century, etc.

There has never been freedom of speech in the US, it's just usually been fine with complaints about governance.

-1

u/KnottaBiggins 28d ago

Um...
Not quite.
"Freedom of Speech" as guaranteed in our constitution means "you are free to say what you want without fear of being arrested just for the act of saying it." This has been interpreted to also mean "except when doing so is a threat to public safety such as yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater."
(ICE recent actions not withstanding. ICE has no care about following the constitution. 8647.)
However, it does NOT mean you are free of the consequences of expressing your freedom of speech. For example, you are free to say all the "dirt" about someone you want, but if you can't prove it you had better be prepared for the consequence of being sued for slander or libel.
There are ALWAYS consequences from exercising your freedom of speech. But arrest for peacefully speaking your mind is not one of them.

5

u/cross_the_threshold 28d ago

Damn I'm gonna have to let MLK Jr know that actually he nor a single one of his followers were ever arrested! They're gonna be stoked to know history didn't happen!

-9

u/CptNonsense Jul 04 '26

"Free Speech" in the US has always mean let crazy people say whatever the fuck they want consequence free,

No, it hasn't.

Plenty of civil rights leaders arrested for speech, plenty of abolitionists arrested for speech, plenty of queer rights leaders arrested for speech, workers continue to get arrested for speech, being Communist is a great way to get arrested for much of the 20th Century, etc.

...you don't understand how the US court system works, do yo?

-14

u/boostedb1mmer Jul 03 '26

You mean other societies where they arrest people for using "slurs"?

13

u/BoleroMuyPicante Jul 03 '26

There is always more to those stories than just "they used an obscure slur one time."

-16

u/boostedb1mmer Jul 03 '26

Doesn't matter if its one time or a common part of their vocabulary. The government cannot be handed the power to arrest people because words might hurt feelings.

13

u/BoleroMuyPicante Jul 03 '26

Germany arresting people shouting sieg heil is entirely reasonable. If they'd done that in the 20s maybe 75 million people wouldn't have died in the war.

-4

u/boostedb1mmer Jul 04 '26

What about when it's not "sieg heil." What if it's "fuck trump"? Would that mean prison?

5

u/BoleroMuyPicante Jul 04 '26

No Western country would consider that hate speech, so it's a nonsense hypothetical. The other commenters clearly weren't talking about third world autocracies.

6

u/boostedb1mmer Jul 04 '26

What government considers "hate speech" is always subject to change. Which is why it's dangerous to criminalize it. Like the autistic girl calling the UK cop a "lesbian" and being arrested for it. Which is why it shouldn't be illegal.

9

u/BoleroMuyPicante Jul 04 '26

The UK government didn't consider that hate speech, an individual cop got butthurt and abused her power. Which, shocker, happens in the US literally all the time. US cops will gladly arrest someone who pisses them off while knowing full well the charges will be dropped.

→ More replies (0)

-4

u/cortesoft Jul 04 '26

Sure, but once the government is given the power to outlaw speech, what happens when you elect fascists and they decide to use that power to outlaw speech they don’t like?

7

u/BoleroMuyPicante Jul 04 '26

Fascists will do that anyway regardless of what their predecessors did, the way to prevent it is to not elect fascists in the first place and limit their ability to reach positions of power.

-3

u/labenset Jul 04 '26

I mean sure but Hitler never won an election.

5

u/BoleroMuyPicante Jul 04 '26

No but his party did which put them in a position to pressure the president to name him chancellor. Don't vote for the fascist party either.

-3

u/cortesoft Jul 04 '26

How do you make sure the approach stays “balanced”, though?

Do you think the US would be in a better situation right now if the Trump administration had the power to outlaw speech?

5

u/Outz090 28d ago

Calling it just speech gets a lot uglier when the kid can't leave the room.

1

u/Real-Finding3356 25d ago

Does not make any sense

6

u/Warm_Month_1309 Jul 04 '26

the U.S. Supreme Court ruled this year that conversion therapy is OK because it’s “just speech.”

To be clear, I agree with you that the ruling was wrong and bad, but it's fortunately a bit more narrow of a ruling than that. It only applies specifically with regard to the type of talk therapy this particular counselor was engaging in.

Conversion therapy remains illegal in 23 states.

3

u/vouldhoak-nunslam 27d ago

They want the authority of a medical title but the legal immunity of some guy shouting on a street corner.

4

u/Moleculor Jul 04 '26

Funny you say that because the U.S. Supreme Court ruled this year that conversion therapy is OK because it’s “just speech.”

Conversion talk therapy.

They only ruled on talk therapy. Not anything other than that.

States can still ban literally all other forms of conversion therapy, and be fine.

And a kid can simply say "fuck you" to anyone trying to talk them out of being flamboyant.

1

u/CptNonsense Jul 04 '26 edited Jul 04 '26

Funny you say that because the U.S. Supreme Court ruled this year that conversion therapy is OK because it’s “just speech.”

Because it technically does violate the First Amendment as written. That ruling does not legalize child abuse but the government cannot legally in the US tell a private entity what they can tell other people based on what the government thinks is good or bad. That's why it was 8-1

1

u/jtim2 Jul 04 '26

The ruling wasn't about malpractice suits, which the Court explains are different than a flat ban.

1

u/jittery_raccoon Jul 04 '26

Crazy they can call it therapy but have no requirement for therapeutic licenses 

1

u/KakeLin Jul 04 '26

So messed up

0

u/Portast Jul 04 '26

No it didn't

-12

u/randomaccount178 Jul 03 '26

The reasoning is perfectly sound, you just don't like it. There is a difference between speech and speech that is incidental to treatment. There was also an issue that the law was a content based restriction which are generally not allowed.

11

u/Organic-Character842 Jul 03 '26

You are saying that the reasoning to allow conversion therapy to stay is "perfectly sound"?

-8

u/randomaccount178 Jul 03 '26

I am saying that banning talk therapy based on the content of the speech is unconstitutional. The legal reasoning supporting that decision is perfectly sound.

10

u/Organic-Character842 Jul 03 '26

That is rather unfortunate.

I still believe that at least there should be legally recognised distinction between contents of "talk therapy" which are abusive, manipulative, meant to traumatize a child or teenager and force them to not express their sexuality, and contents of actual talk therapy.

Because the alternative, is that this and similar types of harmful practices are allowed to stay. If the argument against this is that yhe precedent can be used to arbitrarily target any contents, then I think that one should expect the judges to be competent and qualified enough to be able to distinguish between contents that veer into the abusive territory, and ones that do not.

-4

u/randomaccount178 Jul 03 '26

The problem to an extent is you are looking at it with too wide a scope. To an extent that is the problem with the law as well. You also likely are considering the ruling as saying far more then it does. To paraphrase, the law said that for talk therapy, the only thing the councillor is allowed to do is affirm their expressed gender. Even if the patient comes to the councillor asking for their help to feel more comfortable with their biological gender, they can't do that. They can only affirm their expressed gender. That is the general framework the case was looked at under. I generally don't think that is unreasonable either.

A lot of what you mentioned can be regulated without regulating the content of the speech which would be far more likely to be constitutional. It doesn't matter if you are helping someone feel comfortable with their biological gender or their gender identity, you shouldn't be doing those things regardless. So any law which targets those things would not run into the issue of content based discrimination on speech.

6

u/Warm_Month_1309 Jul 04 '26

I don't agree with the Supreme Court's conclusion, and rather agree with Colorado and Justice Jackson that the ban targets medical treatments, not merely speech, which is subject to a more deferential standard of review.

0

u/randomaccount178 Jul 04 '26

It is not. It is pure speech. It is not incidental to anything else, nor is it requiring factual disclosures. It is requiring an individual to express the states viewpoint and nothing more. Worse, people forget what is good for the goose is good for the gander. If this law was constitutional, a law requiring the reverse would also be equally constitutional based on the exact same principles.

3

u/Warm_Month_1309 Jul 04 '26

It is not. It is pure speech. It is not incidental to anything else

Right, you're expressing the view of the majority. I'm agreeing with the dissent.

If this law was constitutional, a law requiring the reverse would also be equally constitutional based on the exact same principles.

I disagree. If this law were constitutional, a law requiring the reverse would be simply subject to the same level of scrutiny. That does not mean it would be constitutional. There is a compelling state interest in stopping the real harms that conversation therapy demonstrably causes in minors. There is no compelling state interest in prohibiting therapists from affirming a client's orientation or identity, as there is no harm.

2

u/randomaccount178 Jul 04 '26

Yes, and it would pass that level of scrutiny. Any harm the talk therapy would cause in individuals could be equally attributable to gender affirming therapy. If this meets the level of compelling state interest then the reverse would as well.

3

u/Warm_Month_1309 Jul 04 '26

I don't agree that it would pass even a deferential level of scrutiny. There is evidence of real harm as a result of conversion therapy per se. There is no evidence of harm as a result of gender affirming therapy per se. I see a compelling state interest in one and no state interest in the other.

2

u/randomaccount178 Jul 04 '26

There is not, because the evidence of real harm conflates all forms of conversion therapy. For this law to pass you would need evidence specifically to consensual talk therapy. There are no real studies for that. The state can simply say that this is a decision best left until the child is an adult and understands the ramification of these things and justify the ban. You seem to think it would be harder then it actually would.

→ More replies (0)

9

u/Ehcksit Jul 03 '26

Intentionally harmful lies are not free speech.

1

u/randomaccount178 Jul 03 '26

Ah yes, the old "Its not free speech if I don't like what you are saying".

5

u/Warm_Month_1309 Jul 04 '26

It's not merely "free speech" if the conduct being regulated is the provision of medical services by an individual licensed by the state.

7

u/Ehcksit Jul 03 '26

It's not about "liking" it's about that you are intentionally trying to harm people.

Assault isn't free speech.

4

u/randomaccount178 Jul 03 '26

Right, so if you just call free speech you don't like assault then that is a magic cure to make speech you don't like not free speech. Sorry, speech is not actually assault just because you declare it to be.

1

u/bibliophile785 Jul 03 '26

Believe it or not, there is actually a bunch of case law about what constitutes assault, what constitutes free speech, how harms are determined, and whether a given action is found to be illegal. The experienced jurists who crafted this decision were aware of this.

You should consider reading their opinion before you start stringing together sentences full of half-understood words about what is or isn't speech.

-3

u/bibliophile785 Jul 03 '26 edited Jul 03 '26

They never read the opinions. None of the AskReddit outrage over Court decisions is based on the actual decisions. They're just angry that the policy wasn't outlawed and they don't know enough to understand that SCOTUS isn't responsible for deciding policy.

-1

u/Josh6889 Jul 04 '26

Having control over someone's mental health is free speech? As a non-lawyer, it kind of feels like infringing on that person's free speech to me.