Episode Summary: "Ep. 257: Conversion therapy at the Supreme Court"

So to Speak: The Free Speech Podcast | Host: Nico Perrino (FIRE)
Release Date: November 13, 2025

Episode Overview

In this episode, host Nico Perrino is joined by FIRE colleagues Ronnie London (General Counsel) and Connor Fitzpatrick (Supervising Senior Attorney) for an in-depth discussion of the Supreme Court case Chiles v. Salazar, which examines Colorado's ban on conversion therapy for minors through the lens of the First Amendment. The episode also explores Pentagon press badge policies, recent free speech issues at Indiana University, and recent federal actions concerning visa holders and speech, particularly post-Charlie Kirk assassination.

The conversation is candid, analytical, and rich with references to both legal precedent and current events.

1. Chiles v. Salazar: Conversion Therapy at the Supreme Court

Main Issue:

• Colorado law bans "conversion therapy" (efforts to change a minor's sexual orientation or gender identity) when performed by licensed therapists, raising questions about the boundary between "speech" and "conduct" and what level of First Amendment scrutiny applies.

Key Discussion Points:

• Distinction Between Speech & Conduct:

  • Ronnie London explains that the courts below viewed therapy as "conduct" and thus subject only to rational basis review, the lowest form of constitutional scrutiny ([03:44]).
  • Historically, conversion therapy included both speech and more drastic measures like aversion therapy, but the current case is solely about "talk therapy" ([04:20]-[06:08]).

• Licensure and Free Speech:

  • The discussion illuminates how professional licensing interacts with free speech. Even though licensed therapists are regulated, pure speech cannot be stripped of First Amendment protection merely by virtue of licensure ([07:26]-[08:49]).
  • Notably, non-licensed individuals can still engage in conversion therapy under Colorado’s statute; the restriction is only on licensed professionals.

• Viewpoint Discrimination:

  • The hosts highlight that the Colorado law carves out exceptions for affirming therapy, raising concerns about inherent viewpoint discrimination ([15:50]).
  • Ronnie London: “If this is speech in any way, shape or form, and by the way, if I’m not telegraphing it, I think it is, if this is speech in any way, shape or form, that viewpoint discrimination baked into the statute ought to be fatal to it.” ([16:19])

• Hypotheticals & Precedents:

  • Connor Fitzpatrick invites listeners to imagine a law, in a more conservative state, banning affirming therapy for transgender minors to test the consistency of their principles ([14:17]).
  • The case is contextualized with analogies to previous cases involving tour guide licensing and legal practice—fields regulated through licensure but built on speech ([06:08]).

• Parental, Medical, and Tort Law Issues:

  • Parental rights and the fact the law targets minors is considered relevant to the level of scrutiny, not the threshold First Amendment analysis ([13:11]).
  • Medical malpractice and licensing serve as existing less-restrictive alternatives to outright bans, especially under strict scrutiny ([11:12]).
  • Parallels are drawn to other professions and government interventions—e.g., regulation of abortion dialog, marijuana advice, and pandemic-era medical recommendations ([26:13]-[27:20]).

Notable Quotes:

• “You have a willing speaker, a willing listener, and the government saying, we don’t care that you want to hear this Speech, and we don’t care that you want to give the speech. We are going to step in and prevent you from making it and you from hearing it. And I think that’s where the First Amendment feelers need to go up here.”
  — Connor Fitzpatrick ([09:41])
• “That would mean that the government can do whatever it wants almost with respect to licensed professions that are heavily dependent upon communication and speech because all they have to show is a reasonable relationship to something legitimate the government might want to accomplish.”
  — Ronnie London ([25:39])

Key Timestamps:

• [00:52] – Introduction to Chiles v. Salazar
• [03:44] – Rational basis vs. strict scrutiny
• [08:49] – Viewpoint discrimination and exceptions within the statute
• [14:17] – Hypothetical to test viewpoint neutrality
• [16:19] – Viewpoint discrimination as a “third rail”
• [25:39] – Danger of removing entire professions from First Amendment protections

2. Pentagon Press Badge Policy & Press Freedom

Main Issue:

• The Pentagon instituted new press badge policies requiring journalists to affirm restrictive conditions—including not soliciting information a government employee is legally barred from sharing.

Key Discussion Points:

• New Policy Details:

  • Journalists risk losing Pentagon credentials if they encourage or ask government employees to provide non-disclosable information ([32:16]-[33:13]).
  • Most mainstream outlets refused to sign, seeing this as a threat to press independence; a few, such as One America News, complied ([31:29]-[34:41]).

• First Amendment Concerns:

  • The team critiques the policy as a fundamental misunderstanding of journalistic inquiry and the First Amendment: journalists asking questions is not itself a crime—punishing the act of inquiry chills critical reporting ([34:00]-[37:52]).
  • Ronnie London: “You can prohibit an unlawful quid pro quo. But you can’t simply prohibit asking a question and asking for information...the burden is on the government employee to not give up the information.” ([36:25])

• Real-World Analogies & Legal Precedent:

  • The Villarreal case (FIRE litigation for a citizen journalist prosecuted for “questioning officials”) exemplifies the danger of statutes penalizing inquiry ([39:18]-[40:58]).

• Photography/Filming Restrictions:

  • The group discusses the policy at the Pentagon 9/11 memorial, which prohibits journalists (but not citizens) from filming in their journalistic capacity without special permission—even with a cellphone ([43:27]-[48:15]).

Notable Quotes:

• “Savings clauses are bullshit...You don’t get to adopt unconstitutional regulation and say, but to the extent it’s unconstitutional, it’s not unconstitutional because I’m not doing anything to the First Amendment. That’s nonsense.”
  — Ronnie London ([42:51])

• “But what they cannot constitutionally do is punish you, the journalist, because you reported something that you would rather have not gotten out.”
  — Connor Fitzpatrick ([35:51])

Key Timestamps:

• [31:29] – Origins of the new Pentagon policy
• [33:13]-[34:41] – Legal and practical analysis of “solicitation” ban for journalists
• [39:18]-[41:43] – Villarreal case discussion
• [43:27]-[45:42] – Photography restrictions and analogies

3. Indiana University – A Case Study in Campus Speech Suppression

Main Issue:

• Once a symbol of academic freedom, Indiana University has become notorious for repeated censorship of student journalists, protesters, and faculty—languishing at the bottom of FIRE’s college free speech rankings.

Key Discussion Points:

• Recent Actions by Administration:

  • Banning the student newspaper before homecoming, firing its adviser over refusal to censor, and sanctioning reporting critical of the university’s own speech ranking ([50:47]-[51:54]).
  • Crackdown on protests and public speech, exemplified by last-minute bans on protest encampments at Dun Meadow and the use of police/snipers ([52:20]-[52:59]).
  • Student and faculty discontent, as evidenced by survey data and overwhelming votes of no-confidence in administration ([54:47]).

• Historical Comparison:

  • Contrast with the defense of Alfred Kinsey’s research in the 20th century—highlighting a dramatic change in the university's approach to free expression ([50:47]-[51:30]).

• Response to Legislative and Federal Pressure:

  • Administrative capitulation to legislative and federal pressure on speech issues, particularly regarding controversial topics like Palestine and LGBTQ+ rights ([53:32]-[54:43]).

Notable Quotes:

• “Absolutely effing incredible.”
  — Nico Perrino, on IU’s censorship providing FIRE vindication for their ranking ([51:45])

Key Timestamps:

• [48:54]-[55:39] – Full segment on Indiana University’s free speech record

4. Deporting Visa Holders for Speech After Charlie Kirk’s Assassination

Main Issue:

• In the wake of Charlie Kirk’s assassination, the federal government has revoked the visas of noncitizens and threatened deportation explicitly for their speech (including criticism of Kirk), touching off First Amendment litigation.

Key Discussion Points:

• Legal Precedent:

  • Aliens lawfully present in the U.S. are entitled to First Amendment protections (Bridges v. Wixon, 1945) ([56:38]).
  • The government is using INA 1201 provisions: power to revoke visas “at any time for any reason.” But the panel notes this cannot constitutionally include speech-based reasons ([61:16]).

• Recent Cases:

  • Examples include students and journalists targeted for protest, op-eds, or critical comments. In all habeas actions brought so far, the courts have sided with the petitioners ([57:58]).
  • Stanford Daily lawsuit (and AAUP case): challenges the constitutionality of speech-based deportations via §1201([61:24]).

• Government's Position in Litigation:

  • Government claims foreigners have only “diluted to non-existent” First Amendment rights and the political branches can expel them for speech as a sovereign power ([63:27]).
  • Litigation remains pending; oral arguments in Stanford v. State set for November 19 ([64:46]).

Notable Quotes:

• “You cannot throw someone out of the country because you don’t like their ideas. That is an incredibly un-American approach to freedom of speech.”
  — Connor Fitzpatrick ([61:58])

• “They are bragging about it...”
  — Ronnie London, on the government’s public statements regarding speech-based deportations ([62:08])

Key Timestamps:

• [56:38]-[65:03] – Visa revocation and deportation for speech (Bridges v. Wixon, INA 1201, ongoing lawsuits)

Notable Memorable Moments

• Ronnie London, on First Amendment “savings clauses”:
  “Savings clauses are bullshit...That’s nonsense.” ([42:51])
• Connor Fitzpatrick, on “shoe on the other foot” legal tests:
  “Imagine a law passed by a more conservative state...your answer to both hypotheticals needs to be the same because it’s the same constitutional interest at stake.” ([14:17])
• Host banter on Pentagon police pulling over their cars to “Frozen” soundtrack ([47:02])

Timestamps Index of Major Segments

• 00:52 — Chiles v. Salazar: Conversion therapy and free speech
• 31:29 — Pentagon Press Badge Policy
• 48:54 — Indiana University: Censorship scandals
• 56:38 — Visa revocations and free speech for noncitizens

Conclusion

This episode is a comprehensive, no-punches-pulled rundown of current free speech battlegrounds in the courts, government, media, and universities. Thoughtfully traversing complex constitutional questions, the conversation elucidates the high stakes of First Amendment jurisprudence for a range of actors, from therapists and journalists to students, faculty, and foreign nationals.

Recommended segment: For those short on time and interested in current SCOTUS developments, listen to [00:52]-[30:05] for the Chiles v. Salazar breakdown, or [56:38]-[65:03] for the most urgent free speech/deportation litigation updates.