Republicans defend free speech until that speech supports LGBTQ+ people

[Jessica_Rose ✅]

Republicans claim to be fierce defenders of free speech until that speech supports LGBTQ+ people

https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2026/09/republicans-claim-to-be-fierce-defenders-of-free-speech-until-that-speech-supports-lgbtq-people/ 🔗

Alex Bollinger (17 Sep 2026)

Conservatives don't care about free speech, but they could stand to be a little less obvious about it.

A federal appeals court is allowing the state of Florida to sue three medical associations for their statements in support of gender-affirming care for trans youth. Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier (R) sued the American Academy of Pediatrics, the WPATH, and the Endocrine Society this past December, saying the medical associations' statements violated state laws against false advertising and racketeering (as in, organized crime).

The lawsuit said that the groups' rhetoric promoted "reprehensible and immoral" procedures to "sell lucrative surgeries and drugs that irreversibly mutilate and chemically alter children's bodies without providing any credible medical benefit."

Obviously, I disagree with Uthmeier on the substance here. The three medical organizations in question back gender-affirming care for trans youth because that's where the science is, and I don't think an anti-vaxxer crank like Uthmeier has a better grasp on the relevant research than the literal American Academy of Pediatrics.

But also, this raises my hackles. It hasn't even been six months since the right was celebrating the Supreme Court's decision in Chiles v. Salazar, where the Court ruled that therapists have a First Amendment right to practice conversion therapy on children. Banning state-licensed mental health professionals from telling minors that they can become straight or cisgender if they pray hard enough, the Court ruled, is a violation of the therapists' First Amendment rights.
---------------------------
@Sarah B

[Lori Dee ✅]

"reprehensible and immoral" procedures to "sell lucrative surgeries and drugs that irreversibly mutilate and chemically alter children's bodies without providing any credible medical benefit."

I would demand a list of all so-called surgeries that fit that description. When they fail, Motion to Dismiss for lack of evidence.

[Petunia]

The right to free speech. HA

Any right wing person who says this means "we need to have the right to say whatever it is that we like... unless I don't like it".

[Jillian-TG]

Reality with free speech is that we all support it until someone says something we don't like or find offensive. Then free speech needs an asterisk with rules and guardrails. But free speech the rules is a bit of an oxymoron.

I don't think many of us - liberal or conservative - truly want free speech. We want a version of free speech that aids our stance and muzzles opposition with rules of engagement.

[Devlyn ✅]

Free speech never meant the right to say anything you please. It's directed at your ability to criticize the government without fear of being sent to prison.

[Finally Anna]

Sticking my head out, with my proverbial hard-hat on.

Free speech never meant the right to say anything you please. It's directed at your ability to criticize the government without fear of being sent to prison.

Yes, that is the origin of free speech. And it is an important principle.

Truly free speech is when we defend someone's right to say lawful things that we don't like. Absolutely not that we defend what they are saying, but their right to say it.

So, as a very pointy example, it is when we in the trans community defend the anti-peoples' right to say anti-things (assuming it is lawful). It doesn't feel like a thing we'd want to do, does it? But I think it is something we all should at least juggle a bit in our own heads because if/when we want to limit peoples' lawful opinions and rhetoric then we are on that slippery slope.

If you want to get at me for writing this then I needed that hard-hat.

[Devlyn ✅]

It's an interesting debate. We can defend someone's right to burn a flag. We can defend someone's right to rescue that same flag. Yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater isn't illegal. If someone dies in a stampede out of the theater you can be charged for their death. Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences.

[Petunia]

It's an interesting debate. We can defend someone's right to burn a flag. We can defend someone's right to rescue that same flag. Yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater isn't illegal. If someone dies in a stampede out of the theater you can be charged for their death. Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences.

Or someone in power saying x should be killed and then denying that isn't incitement.

Saying an election is rigged and we will fight back, but no, I didn't mean people to be killed.

Saying something that is scientifically untrue, like vaccines are being used to control people.

There's heaps but I'll stop

[Laura Squirrel]

Free speech never meant the right to say anything you please. It's directed at your ability to criticize the government without fear of being sent to prison.

Spot-on! Way too many people screw that up. EDIT: Cheers to everyone else between her post and mine. Ya got it!

[Tig58072]

Republicans don't defend free speech. They defend speech they want to hear. Everyone else they want silenced.