| You point out that there are other ways of conceiving of “freedom of thought.” I believe you argue that free thought is inextricably tied to free expression, which could (and should) then be protected by privacy or anonymity laws. Or freedom of thought could be conceived as rights to be protected from government censorship, as the First Amendment generally does.
But these other premises conflate thoughts with expressions. Expressions are far easier to protect from external intervention by application of law. The First Amendment promises that expressions will be free from prior restraints; in other words, thoughts are privileged to become expressions without government intervention; only after such expression is announced may the government impose its judgment. But thoughts are far more difficult to insulate from outside forces than expressions. And using the law in particular to protect thoughts from foreign influence is a daunting task. For example, laws designed to safeguard children from certain advertising in commercials (e.g., cigarettes) are leaky, since movies and songs and other humans can plant the thought in the children's brain that such advertising laws were designed to prevent (e.g., "cigarettes are cool"). To be clear, I do not claim that free-thinking is not worth protecting, or that laws could not potentially achieve that end.
I apologize if this essay had an otherwise condescending tone. It was not my intention to dismiss other arguments or assume the superiority of mine. I humbly accept any and all debate. |