Supreme Court affirms importance of persuasion over prohibition

PUBLISHED: April 2, 2026 | www.baltimoresun.com

This week, the Supreme Court reaffirmed something foundational: The First Amendment is not selective. It does not bend to prevailing winds, nor does it yield to majority comfort.

In an 8-1 decision, the court sided with a Christian therapist, concluding that Colorado’s restriction on certain forms of talk therapy dealing with gender identity and sexual orientation crossed a constitutional line, describing it as an “egregious assault” on free speech. The weight of that majority matters. It signals not a narrow ideological split but a broad institutional agreement that the government cannot regulate speech simply because it disapproves of its content.

Moments like these, whether one agrees with the outcome or not, demand that we examine the principle beneath the politics.

This is where moral clarity must live:

A society confident in its values does not silence speech; it confronts it.

The court’s reasoning underscores a critical distinction between regulating conduct and controlling expression. States have long held authority to protect public health and safety. But when regulation moves from actions to words, from conduct to conversation, it enters far more dangerous constitutional territory. Speech, particularly in private, consensual settings, has historically received the highest level of protection.

At the same time, we cannot ignore the other truth. Major medical organizations and many advocates warn that such therapies can be harmful, particularly to young people. That concern is real. It reflects lived experiences, professional judgment and a desire to protect vulnerable individuals. It deserves seriousness, not dismissal or caricature.

But the Constitution was not designed to protect only agreeable speech. It was designed precisely for moments like this, when the tension between liberty and protection is most uncomfortable, when the impulse to regulate feels justified, even necessary.

The question is not whether we agree.

The question is whether we are willing to uphold a principle even when we don’t.

Freedom of speech is not an endorsement of every idea; it is a commitment to the right to express them without government coercion. It places the burden on society, not the state, to challenge, debate and, when necessary, reject ideas through persuasion rather than prohibition.

The bottom line is this: In America, the government does not get to decide what can be said, believed or discussed in the privacy of thought and conversation. That line, once crossed, becomes nearly impossible to restore.

The court has reminded us that our rights are not safeguarded when they are easy, but when they are tested.

Armstrong Williams (www.armstrongwilliams.com; @arightside) is a political analyst, syndicated columnist and owner of the broadcasting company, Howard Stirk Holdings. He is also part owner of The Baltimore Sun.