The Supreme Court just heard arguments in a highly controversial and complex case concerning so-called “conversion therapy,” when therapists seek to help a patient change his or her sexual orientation or “gender identity.” Thankfully, online political commentators and internet stars are treating the case with the nuance and thoughtfulness it deserves. Just kidding.

Instead, they’re spreading misinformation and failing to engage with the serious legal arguments raised in this case. For example, YouTube star Brian Tyler Cohen wrote on X in a post that received more than 18 million views, “The Supreme Court appears ready to side with Trump in bringing back ‘gay conversion therapy.’ This practice involves physically abusing teenagers to try to turn them heterosexual, including with electric shocks and chemically-induced nausea” (emphasis added).

Recommended Stories

• Virginia's proposed abortion 'right' would take power from parents
• Widespread 'fact-checker' failure on public health benefits for illegal immigrants
• Sorry, fact-checkers. Spying is spying

SUPREME COURT ASKED TO WEIGH IN ON WHETHER SCHOOLS CAN SECRETLY TRANSITION STUDENTS

Scary and concerning stuff! There’s just one problem: This isn’t true. The case the Supreme Court just heard, Chiles v. Salazar, only concerns talk therapy, not any of the treatments Cohen mentioned. But his post and countless others like it have spread like wildfire online without correction.

Meanwhile, other social media stars with millions of followers have posted videos raising the alarm about this case. TikTok star “Spencewuah” warned his more than 18 million followers that this case will supposedly endanger the “safety of queer individuals” and portrayed the issue as the Supreme Court “debating whether telling queer kids they’re ‘broken’ is free speech.”

In reality, the case is a lot more complicated, and a lot less straightforward, than any of these talking heads are suggesting.

To be clear, I agree with and have long advocated state laws banning some forms of “conversion therapy” for minors when it comes to sexual orientation, including the kinds of horrifying electroshock or aversion therapy techniques we’ve seen in the past. They don’t work and are deeply harmful, falling well within the scope of a state’s ability to regulate fraudulent practices. But the Colorado law that’s before the Supreme Court goes much, much further than this.

It defines “conversion therapy” to include any interaction with a therapist, even just talking, that “attempts or purports to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity.” It specifically says that this does not apply when a therapist is affirming a child’s claimed gender.

So, if a 10-year-old who spends too much time on TikTok and now claims his gender identity is an animal comes to a therapist, the therapist can talk to him about it if she affirms that he is, in fact, valid as a cat. But if she questions this identity, voicing that in her therapeutic conversations would be considered engaging in illegal “conversion therapy.” Yes, seriously.

Lawyers for the conservative Alliance Defending Freedom argue that this constitutes viewpoint discrimination by the state and therefore violates the First Amendment. It’s hard to see these laws any other way: Therapists with the state-approved perspective can talk to their patients about it, but therapists with the alternative, biology-based perspective cannot. So, the Constitution may well be on the side of the ADF and its clients.

ADVOCATES WARN COLORADO ‘CONVERSION THERAPY’ BAN IN SUPREME COURT CASE IS ‘BLATANT CENSORSHIP’

Left-wing critics should ask themselves a simple question. If red states were to draw up laws that prohibited therapists from “affirming” a patient’s gender identity, wouldn’t that violate their First Amendment rights? Honest progressives would have to admit as much, and free speech protections can’t only go one way.

But there’s a broader issue here. By conflating the indefensible, electro-shocking the “gay away” from gay teenagers, and the reasonable, telling a child she is not, in fact, “nonbinary,” activists and legislators have not only muddied the waters, but they have also undermined the legal and moral ground on which efforts to protect children from genuinely harmful practices rest.

Brad Polumbo is an independent journalist and host of the Brad vs Everyone podcast.