A tortured interpretation of "free speech" and Florida law

In Florida, it is illegal for a doctor to ask a patient about gun ownership if it is not "relevant" to the patient's medical care.   The law does not define what being "relevant" means.

This arose because pediatricians were increasingly being urged by their professional associations to counsel the parents of small children about gun safety in the home, in the same way a pediatrician might advise parents about any public health or personal safety issues.  And there are certainly enough deaths of children who find guns in the home and accidentally shoot themselves or a sibling or friend.

The NRA would have none of that, thank you very much.  So they got a law passed to prevent it.    The law has now been tested in a lawsuit, and a three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the law, denying the claim that the law interferes with the free speech of the doctors.

This seems a dangerous interpretation and begins to chip away at 1st amendment rights (freedom of speech) in favor of so-called 2nd amendment rights (gun ownership).   The court's reasoning was that doctors questioning their patients is "treatment" and therefore does not come under the protection of free speech.

My first reaction, as above, was to see this as gun rights vs free speech rights.   But, on further thought, it makes some sense.  A recent controversy concerning "treatment" vs "free speech" arose over a new kind of law (passed in both California and New Jersey) that prohibits licensed counselors and therapists in those states from undertaking a "treatment" aimed at changing the sexual orientation or gender expression of anyone under the age of 18.    This is based on studies showing that those treatments often do serious harm, while being minimally effective in achieving their reputed aim.

A challenge to the law in California from conservative therapists who claimed it violated their free speech was rejected by the courts.  In other words, protecting patients from harmful treatments trumps free speech of the doctor.   When you reframe the question that way, it seems different.   The problem is in the NRA's concept of why this is "harmful."

I have not read the 11th court opinion and am relying on news reports.  But assuming that they are correct, where I see the 11th Circuit Court went wrong was in simply accepting that claim and upholding the law.  What the court should have done is to say that it cannot be upheld on the basis of free speech, but it could be overturned based on the assumption that it is harmful to patients to be counseled on gun safety in the home.   Then that puts its right back on the NRA to prove that counseling parents to keep guns locked up is actually harmful.

That's a high bar of proof for the NRA to meet.   They will make the claim -- based on paranoid conspiracy theories and anti-government fears.   But convincing the court is another matter.

Ralph