Advisory Opinions Vindictive Prosecutions
11 snips
Oct 16, 2025 The hosts explore the pivotal Chiles v. Salazar case regarding conversion therapy bans for minors, debating its implications on First Amendment rights. They dissect the indictment against Letitia James for mortgage fraud, questioning its merits and whether it reflects 'lawfare.' Discussions also cover the legal strategies in James Comey's case, potential Supreme Court rulings on various critical arguments, and the balance of parental rights in student gender transitions. A wide-ranging analysis that connects legal precedent to contemporary issues makes for a captivating dialogue.
AI Snips
Chapters
Transcript
Episode notes
Definition Shapes Free Speech Outcome
- Colorado's conversion-therapy ban targets a statute-defined practice, not everyone's mental model of 'conversion therapy'.
- The case hinges on the statute's precise definition and whether licensed therapists' speech can be regulated.
Licensing Doesn't Override Free Speech
- Licensing schemes complicate First Amendment analysis because they fold speech regulation into professional standards.
- David French warns we shouldn't treat regulatory licensing as superior to constitutional speech protections.
Demand Evidence Before Upholding Speech Bans
- Do not assume legislatures can ban speech purely by asserting a professional standard of care without empirical support.
- Require robust evidence when a law claims talk therapy is harmful before allowing speech bans.