Recently, a poster on a major Christian message board made that claim in a newly created thread.
Since it is forbidden to "promote homosexuality" on that board, noone challenged that claim.
I think it is presumption backed up by nothing.
But on this board, it continues to be treated as factual.
The poster cited a law in Australia banning conversion therapies in Victoria
Victoria bans gay conversion practices after 12-hour debate.
In my opinion, this has nothing to do with freedom of speech.
The alleged infringement on people's right to raise their voice is but another Christian conspiracy theory, I'm afraid.
Since it is a major Christian discussion forum with thousands of members, this is quite embarrassing, I think.
Interesting topic, and I'm a Victorian, so maybe I can add something of value here. There are a couple of considerations here, at a high level I think. One is the concept that 'free speech' is being eroded. The second is more around this specific legislation. First to 'free speech'...
I think what is commonly happening is that issues of social acceptance, or even social censure are being confused with 'freedom of speech'.
I'm 46. When I was a kid, gay slurs were common. Many were simply throwaway lines meant as a general insult. Calling someone certain derogatory names didn't mean they were literally gay, for example, but was more about questioning their masculinity/toughness, or just used as general insults.
That type of language is socially unacceptable these days. I'm sure there are still similar jokes and insults made within certain groups, but (much like with racism) you are going to suffer a level of social censure or pushback if you start throwing such terms around in general company.
Freedom of speech in Australia isn't quite treated the same as it appears to be in the US, but if I want to call the Prime Minister a d***head, then so be it. But if I used a homosexual slur against him in a public setting, that would get a far more serious response. The barest of considerations of history will leave someone understanding why. It's not that I'd be thrown in gaol, but I'd be pilloried, and likely suffer other consequences (banned from venues, impact on employment, etc) as well as becoming a meme and joke I suspect.
To any decrying 'historical values', they'd need to show some consistency. Whilst highly ironic that the boards you referred to in the OP called out 'freedom of speech' issues whilst doing so in a controlled environment, it's even simpler that that. 'Traditional values' used social censure ruthlessly to control speech.
In relation to this legislation, my quick thoughts are as follows;
Gay conversion therapy isn't the same as using a homosexual slur on someone, in the sense that the intent of the action is (hopefully!) different. But the view of the government...and I strongly believe this would be supported by the majority of the population...is that gay conversion therapy is harmful to the person undergoing it. And these people are often minors, or young adults who have been brought up with a very specific view on homosexuality, reinforced over time. If we take religion out of the picture (for a moment) and look at this from an evidence-based approach, there is pretty clear evidence of the ineffectiveness and negative impact of such 'therapies', at least anecdotally.
I can't (legally) verbally abuse my wife. That's not an attempt to restrict my freedom of speech, it's an attempt to protect my wife from mental harm. This is along the same lines.
If someone wants to provide evidence that gay conversion therapy leads to good outcomes for the 'converted', then more power to them. That's STILL not an argument about freedom of speech, but at least it's on topic.
But I'd be (perhaps) interested in their thoughts about people like David Matheson or McKrae Game, and how that plays into their concept that gay conversion therapy promotes freedom of speech...
