Home > 법률/규제 > U.S. Supreme Court Ruling and the Dilemma of Freedom of Speech: Questions Raised by the Unconstitutional Decision on Conversion Therapy Bans

U.S. Supreme Court Ruling and the Dilemma of Freedom of Speech: Questions Raised by the Unconstitutional Decision on Conversion Therapy Bans

Conversion Therapy Bans and the First Amendment: At the Heart of the Debate

법률_규제 2026-04-02 법률/규제

Conversion Therapy Bans and the First Amendment: At the Heart of the Debate The U.S. Supreme Court's landmark ruling on the First Amendment on March 31, 2026, has once again ignited a fervent debate in American society regarding the nature and limits of freedom of speech. In the 'Chiles v. Salazar' case, Colorado's 'conversion therapy ban' was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, leading to a clash of various perspectives surrounding the issue. This case, intertwining complex issues of freedom of speech, the state's regulatory authority, and the protection of vulnerable groups, carries significant implications worldwide. Colorado's conversion therapy ban was enacted to protect the rights of LGBTQ+ individuals, prohibiting attempts to change a person's sexual orientation or gender identity through psychological treatments or similar processes. Conversion therapy, which views homosexuality or transgender identity as mental disorders and attempts to 'convert' individuals to heterosexual or cisgender identities, has been deemed unscientific and harmful by major medical organizations, including the American Psychological Association (APA). Nevertheless, in this case, the U.S. Supreme Court found the law to violate the First Amendment on the grounds that it restricted a particular viewpoint. The majority opinion, authored by Justice Gorsuch, explicitly stated that "the government cannot prohibit or regulate people's speech based on a particular viewpoint," emphasizing that such laws constitute viewpoint discrimination. The ruling warned against "historical instances where the government manipulated professional speech to consolidate state power, oppress minorities, or censor unpopular ideas," reaffirming the principle that constitutional protection should not be diminished simply because speech comes from a licensed professional. This ruling is significant because it not only re-establishes principles previously affirmed by the Supreme Court but also clashes with the important value of protecting LGBTQ+ individuals. In particular, the First Amendment is a core element of the U.S. constitutional system that prioritizes freedom of expression, and this ruling has raised new questions about how this provision can be interpreted and applied in political or social debates. In the wake of the ruling, a heated debate has reignited over how to reconcile freedom of speech with the goal of protecting LGBTQ+ rights. LGBTQ+ organizations in the U.S. strongly protested the ruling, stating, "This law is a matter of human rights, not speech," and some states are preparing to enact other forms of anti-discrimination laws. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) expressed concern over the ruling in a statement, asserting that "conversion therapy is not free speech but an unproven and harmful medical practice." Conversely, organizations advocating for religious freedom welcomed the ruling, arguing that the government should not enforce specific values. Legal experts believe that this situation necessitates a deeper discussion about the scope and application of the First Amendment. Of particular interest is how this ruling will affect the government's regulatory authority in the medical and counseling fields. Some legal scholars worry that this ruling could also impact government intervention in public health areas, such as vaccine recommendations or warnings about the harms of smoking. The discussion surrounding 'professional speech' was one of the core issues in this ruling. Professional speech refers to statements made by individuals in specific professions, such as doctors, psychotherapists, lawyers, and teachers, based on their professional status. Traditionally, the U.S. legal system has allowed a higher level of regulation for such professional speech, distinct from general freedom of expression. Medical malpractice or legal advisory errors are examples. However, Justice Gorsuch emphasized in this ruling that freedom of speech should not be curtailed simply because one is a licensed professional. The ruling stated that "professional licenses do not grant the government the authority to censor an individual's speech," and "a First Amendment violation becomes even more apparent when the government attempts to dictate what opinions or viewpoints can be expressed on a particular subject." This represents a considerably broad interpretation of professional speech, suggesting that the legitimacy of government regulation in various fields may be re-examined in the future. However, the argument that professional speech should be unconditionally protected for this reason carries complex implications when considering its social impact. Medical ethicists argue that a certain level of regulation is necessary to protect patient health and safety. In the case of conversion therapy, in particular, numerous studies have not only failed to prove its effectiveness but have also pointed to severe side effects such as depression and