Politics & Policy

Legislating Censorship in California

Flag a gay pride parade in San Francisco, Calif., in 2015 (Elijah Nouvelage/Reuters)
A bill in the state assembly would restrict access to information on marriage and human sexuality.

People have a right to hear all sides of controversial issues and to decide for themselves what they want to believe. They should be free to buy books and attend conferences that address controversial topics. Adults should be permitted to seek voluntary, faith-based counseling services that they believe are in their best interest.

However, some legislators in California want to eliminate your ability to make those decisions for yourself. The state is currently considering a bill that could silence certain speech that doesn’t align with the government’s position on human sexuality. It could prevent people from hearing all the information and coming to their own conclusions about controversial issues.

Specifically, California Assembly Bill 2943 would make “advertising, offering to engage in, or engaging in sexual orientation change efforts with an individual,” connected with the sale of goods or services, unlawful as a type of consumer fraud. The bill defines “sexual orientation change efforts” as “any practices that seek to change an individual’s sexual orientation. This includes efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions, or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward individuals of the same sex.” Of course, the bill does not prohibit those psychotherapies that the government believes are intended to affirm rather than change gender expressions or romantic feelings.

So the bill could ban the selling of books — yes, books — whose purpose is to help people with unwanted same-sex attraction or to encourage individuals to feel more comfortable in their bodies. The bill applies to the sale of goods or services, and books are “goods.” On the other hand, some argue that the text only proscribes engaging in certain “practices” or “efforts” with an individual, which implies that the scope is limited to personal services. Both arguments are plausible, but that’s the problem. The text is vague.

The bill could also prevent adults from seeking services such as faith-based counseling. Already, at least one prominent Christian conference has canceled a previously scheduled California event, out of liability concerns arising from the new bill.

Certainly the main goal of the law is to ban voluntary, paid counseling services for adults that the state considers to be efforts to change sexual orientation. So if the bill passes, the state probably will not go out and raid bookstores for prohibited books, even though the law as written could bless such an action.

And it’s unclear whether services that merely accept donations instead of charging fees, such as some faith-based seminars and lectures, could be covered. In light of the risks, it’s understandable why religious organizations might choose to forgo holding events in California when its legislature does not seem to mind blatantly infringing on the freedoms of speech and religion.

It is not the government’s place to stand between you and your access to information. It is not the government’s place to determine what kind of counseling you can seek. Those choices are yours.

Under AB 2943, a wide swath of speech could be considered unlawful merely because of its perspective on a controversial topic. Certain Muslim, Jewish, and Christian viewpoints on sexuality and gender taught could soon be illegal in California, depending on when and where they are expressed. Ultimately, it would be up to the California courts to determine how much censorship the law allowed in practice.

Within the broad religious community, viewpoints and beliefs relating to sexuality and gender vary. This debate should be allowed to continue in California’s synagogues, mosques, and sanctuaries, in public debates, conferences, and books, and in the rest of the public square without intrusion by the state.

It is not the government’s place to stand between you and your access to information. It is not the government’s place to determine what kind of counseling you can seek. Those choices are yours.

The bill passed California’s Assembly and was recently referred to the state’s Senate Judiciary Committee. A hearing on AB 2943 will soon be scheduled. It is possible that the bill could be rejected or amended before being enacted into law. If the California Senate does not simply reject the bill, it should, at the very least, amend it to address the state’s concerns narrowly, avoiding harm to the religious liberty of millions of Californians.

Volumes of case law prohibit government from engaging in viewpoint discrimination in the broad marketplace of ideas, but government intrusion into the sacred arena of personal religious counseling, and then calling such counseling fraud? That is the reason we have the First Amendment.

NOW WATCH: ‘Free Speech Under Attack in California’ 

Most Popular


Yes, Hillary Should Have Been Prosecuted

I know this is ancient history, but — I’m sorry — I just can’t let it go. When historians write the definitive, sordid histories of the 2016 election, the FBI, Hillary, emails, Russia, and Trump, there has to be a collection of chapters making the case that Hillary should have faced a jury ... Read More
Law & the Courts

Yes, There Was FBI Bias

There is much to admire in Justice Department inspector general Michael Horowitz’s highly anticipated report on the FBI’s Clinton-emails investigation. Horowitz’s 568-page analysis is comprehensive, fact-intensive, and cautious to a fault. It is also, nonetheless, an incomplete exercise — it omits half ... Read More

Let the World Have Soccer

The United States of America did not qualify for the World Cup this year. Good for us. Soccer is corrupt, hyper-regulated, impoverished by a socialist-style fondness for rationing, and organized to strangle human flourishing. It is so dependent on the whims of referees that is in effect a helpless captive of the ... Read More

Staying on the Path

Dear Reader (Including those of you who are no longer my personal lawyer), Almost 20 years ago, I wrote in this space that the movie A Simple Plan was one of the most conservative movies of the 1990s. In case you haven’t seen it, the plot is pretty straightforward, almost clichéd. It focuses on three men ... Read More

Child Separation at the Border

If you want to read a thoughtful and constructive explanation and partial defense of the policies being implemented by the White House, you should read this piece by Rich Lowry. If you want to read a trollish and counter-productive screed fit for a comment section, read the White House’s official press ... Read More
Economy & Business

Asymmetrical Capitalism

I like to think of American Airlines CEO Doug Parker as my pen pal, but, in truth, he never writes back. It’s a lopsided relationship — asymmetrical, in a word. I have for many years argued that most people would be enthusiastic about capitalism if not for their interactions with a small number of ... Read More