WHEN a doctor asks her patient a question, is the doctor engaged in free speech protected by the Constitution? If you think the answer is obvious, think again. According to a recent decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, everything a doctor says to a patient is “treatment,” not speech, and the government has broad authority to prohibit doctors from asking questions on particular topics without any First Amendment scrutiny at all.

The case, Wollschlaeger v. Governor of Florida, concerned the constitutionality of the Florida Firearm Owners Privacy Act. That 2011 law threatens doctors with professional discipline if they ask patients whether they own guns or record the resulting information in a patient’s files when doing so is not “relevant” to a patient’s medical care.

What may or may not be relevant is unanswered by the statute. Reasonable people can disagree on whether those questions are necessary to provide effective medical care. Opponents of Florida’s law, including the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, believe that asking patients about gun ownership is a legitimate means of promoting public health by giving doctors the opportunity to share firearms-safety tips. Proponents of the law, the National Rifle Association among them, believe that whether a person owns guns is none of his doctor’s business.

The N.R.A. may well be right. Many patients probably prefer not to discuss their gun ownership with their doctor, just as others may not want to discuss their sexual activity or alcohol intake, particularly if they believe the doctor’s inquiries are motivated more by a political agenda than by medical necessity. But the First Amendment generally doesn’t let the government outlaw the asking of annoying questions. Instead, people can refuse to answer or decline to associate with those who insist on asking such questions.