No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Right to Construct Yourself and Your Identity: The Current Human Rights Law Framework Falls Short in Practice in the Face of Illegitimate Interference to the Mind
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 12 February 2024
Abstract
Propaganda and manipulation have long been employed to influence and shape individuals’ thoughts and identities. In the advent of the digital era, these techniques have become more sophisticated and invasive, and are utilized to further various causes. This article investigates the extent to which international human rights law affords protection against manipulation techniques such as microtargeting and behavioral reading, which can negatively impact individuals’ mental health and autonomy by threatening their right to construct their own identity. The right to freedom of thought in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 18), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Article 18), and the European Convention on Human Rights (Article 9) offers absolute protection to individuals’ inner selves and covers the protection against manipulation on paper. However, in practice, the right has not received much attention and has not reached its full potential due to its abstract and ambiguous nature. This Article analyzes the preparatory works of these human rights law instruments, with a particular focus on the right to freedom of thought, to clarify its origins and the intention behind its creation. The Article contends that the historical origins of the right do not provide sufficient answers to the current issue and contribute to the ineffective application of the right against emerging manipulative practices. The Article also proposes potential ways to clarify and strengthen the legal framework related to the right to freedom of thought.
Keywords
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- © 2024 The Author(s)
References
1 William W. Sargant, Battle for the mind. A physiology of conversion and brain-washing, at xxviii (1957).
2 Zeynep Tufekci, Twitter and tear gas: The power and fragility of networked protest 6-7 (2017).
3 Karen Yeung, ‘Hypernudge’: Big data as a mode of regulation by design, 20 Info. Commc’n. & Soc’y 118, 123-24 (2017).
4 Corey L. Brettschneider, Democratic Rights: The Substance of Self-Government 45 (1st ed. 2007).
5 John Christman, Autonomy in Moral and Political Philosophy, Stan. Encyclopedia Phil., Fall 2020, at 9-10.
6 Julie E. Cohen, Examined Lives: Informational Privacy and the Subject as Object, 52 Stan. L. Rev. 1373, 1425 (2000).
7 Richard G. Boire, On Cognitive Liberty, Part I, 1 J. of Cognitive Liberties, Winter 1999/2000, at 7-13.
8 Ahmed Shaheed (Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief), Promotion and Protection of Human Rights: Human Rights Questions, Including Alternative Approaches for Improving the Effective Enjoyment of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, U.N. Doc. A/76/380, ¶2 (Oct. 5, 2021).
9 See Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties art. 32, May 23, 1969, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331 (explaining that when the ordinary meaning of the words of a treaty cannot be determined, its interpretation may be assisted by considering the treaty’s travaux préparatoires and the circumstances surrounding its conclusion).
10 Susie Alegre, Rethinking Freedom of Thought for the 21st Century, 3 Eur. Hum. Rts. L. Rev. 221, 225 (2017) (citing Ben P. Vermeulen, in Theory and practice of the European Convention on Human Rights 752 (Pieter van Dijk et al. ed., 2006)).
11 Edward L. Bernays, Propaganda 26-27 (1928).
12 Tatiane Leal et al., Torches of Freedom: Women, cigarettes and consumption, 13 Comunicacao, Midia & Consumo 47, 55-58 (2016); Vanessa Murphree, Edward Bernays’s 1929 “Torches of Freedom” March: Myths and Historical Significance, 32 Am. Journalism 258, 259 (2015).
14 See generally Robert J. Lifton, Thought reform and the psychology of totalism: A study of ‘brainwashing’ in China (1989).).
15 Simon McCarthy-Jones, Freedom of Thought: Who, What, and Why?, in 1 The Law and Ethics of Freedom of Thought 28-32 (2021).
16 Am. Psychiatric Ass’n, 300.15 Atypical Dissociative Disorder, in Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (3rd ed. 1980).
17 Id.
18 See generally Noam Chomsky, Media control: The spectacular achievements of Propaganda (1997).
19 Eugene Volokh, Cheap Speech and What It Will Do, 104 Yale L.J. 1805 (1995).
20 Jessica Dawson, Microtargeting as Information Warfare, 6 Cyber Def. Rev. 63, 66 (2020) (citing Cathy O’Neil, Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data Increases Inequality and Threatens Democracy (2017)).
21 See Cornelis D. de Jong, The freedom of thought, conscience and religion or belief in the United Nations: (1946-1992) (2000); Christoph Bublitz, Cognitive Liberty or the International Human Right to Freedom of Thought, in Handbook of Neuroethics 1309, 1313 (Jens Clausen & Neil Levy eds., 2014).
22 U.N. GAOR, 69th Sess., UN Doc. A/69/286 ¶28, ¶32 (Aug. 8, 2014);Brahim Zarouali et al., Using a Personality-Profiling Algorithm to Investigate Political Microtargeting: Assessing the Persuasion Effects of Personality-Tailored Ads on Social Media, 49 Commc’n Rsch. 1066, 1066-91 (2022).
23 See generally, Sandra C. Matz et al., Psychological Targeting as an Effective Approach to Digital Mass Persuasion, 114 Proc. Nat’l Acad. Sci. U.S. 12714, 12714–19 (2017).
24 Frederik J. Zuiderveen Borgesius et al., Online Political Microtargeting: Promises and Threats for Democracy, 14 Utrecht L. Rev. 82, 83 (2018). Cambridge Analytica used the psychographic OCEAN model of personality to analyze data from 87 million Facebook users, using 4,000-5,000 data points per user. This allowed the company’s customers, including Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, the United Kingdom Independence Party, and Leave.EU, to tailor their political messages to individual voters and exploit their sensitivities for their own political gain. Olivia Goldhill, A ‘Big Data’ Firm Sells Cambridge Analytica’s Methods to Global Politicians, Documents Show, Quartz (Aug. 14, 2019), https://qz.com/1666776/data-firm-ideia-uses-cambridge-analytica-methods-to-target-voters [perma.cc/SMA3-DD6H]; Jeff Horwitz, Who is Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen? What to Know after her Senate Testimony, Wall St. J. (Oct. 6, 2021) https://www.wsj.com/articles/who-is-frances-haugen-facebook-whistleblower-11633409993 [perma.cc/7RZJ-EGQ8].
25 Georgia Wells et al., Facebook knows Instagram is toxic for teen girls, company documents show, Wall Street J. (2021), https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-knows-instagram-is-toxic-for-teen-girls-company-documents-show-11631620739 (last visited Dec 29, 2022) [https://perma.cc/QJ4J-AST9].
26 Nilesh Christopher et al., Instagram impacts teen mental health in the west. what about everywhere else?, Rest of World (2021), https://restofworld.org/2021/instagram-teen-mental-health/ (last visited Dec 29, 2022) [ https://perma.cc/H6GT-ZP6V].
27 Jean M. Twenge & W. Keith Campbell, Media Use Is Linked to Lower Psychological Well-Being: Evidence from Three Datasets, 90 Psychiatric. Q. 311, 311 (2019). It is important to note that some other studies suggest otherwise, as the variables and the dataset pool differ from research to research. See generally, Andrew K. Przybylski & Netta Weinstein, A Large-Scale Test of the Goldilocks Hypothesis, 28 Psych. Sci. 204, 204-15 (2017).
28 Chaelin K. Ra et al., Association of Digital Media Use with Subsequent Symptoms of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Among Adolescents, 320 JAMA 255, 255-63 (2018); Simon M. Wilksch et al., The Relationship between Social Media Use and Disordered Eating in Young Adolescents, 53 Int’l J. Eating Disorders 96, 96–106 (2019).
29 Luca Braghieri et al., Social Media and Mental Health, 112 Am. Econ. Rev. 3660, 3660 (2022); see Vikram Patel et al., Mental Health of Young People: A Global Public-Health Challenge, 369 Lancet 1302, 1302–13 (2007); Jean M. Twenge et al., Age, Period, and Cohort Trends in Mood Disorder Indicators and Suicide-Related Outcomes in a Nationally Representative Dataset, 2005–2017., 128 J. Abnormal Psych. 185, 185–199 (2019); Twenge & Campbell, supra note 27, at 311-31.
30 U.S. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs. Substance Abuse & Mental Health Servs. Admin., National Survey on Drug Use and Health (2020), Administration, https://www.datafiles.samhsa.gov/dataset/national-survey-drug-use-and-health-2020-nsduh-2020-ds0001 [perma.cc/KN9M-E3ET] (last visited Jan. 1, 2023);] See also U.S. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs. Substance Abuse & Mental Health Servs. Admin., Key Substance Use and Mental Health Indicators in the United States: Results from the 2020 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/reports/rpt35325/NSDUHFFRPDFWHTMLFiles2020/2020NSDUHFFR102121.htm#mde1 [perma.cc/9MJ3-SPQR].
31 See Ctr. for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC) , Table 7. Leading causes of death and numbers of deaths, by age: United States, 1980 and 2019 (2020-2021), https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/2020-2021/LCODAge.pdf [perma.cc/8CBZ-FFKL] (last visited Jan. 1, 2023).
32 Braghieri et al., supra note 29, at 3360-93; Jean M. Twenge et al., Decreases in Psychological Well-Being Among American Adolescents after 2012 and Links to Screen Time During the Rise of Smartphone Technology, 18 Emotion 765, 778 (2018).
33 Christopher A. Summers et al., An Audience of One: Behaviorally Targeted Ads as Implied Social Labels, 43 J. Consumer Rsch. 156, 156–78 (2016) ; Jonathan Haidt, The Dangerous Experiment on Teen Girls, Atl. (Nov. 21, 2021), https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/11/facebooks-dangerous-experiment-teen-girls/620767/ [perma.cc/CT6C-SHG7].
34 Braghieri et al., supra note 29, at 3689.
35 Id.
36 The AI Act proposal Title II, Article 5(1)(b) prohibits the use of AI systems that exploit vulnerabilities of specific groups in a way that causes harm. Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council Laying Down Harmonised Rules on Artificial Intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act) and Amending Certain Union Legislative Acts, at 43, COM (2021) 206 final (Apr. 21, 2021); Press Release, Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) & Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), The Kids Online Safety Act of 2022. “The Kids Online Safety Act empowers kids and their parents to take control over kids’ online experiences to better protect their mental health and well-being.” Id.
37 See Scott Radnitz & Patrick Underwood, Is Belief in Conspiracy Theories Pathological? A Survey Experiment on the Cognitive Roots of Extreme Suspicion, 47 Brit. J. Pol. Sci. 113, 124-25 (2015).
38 H. Lauterpacht, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 25 Brit. Y.B. Int’l L. 354, 369-70 (1948); see also Josef L. Kunz, The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, 43 Am. J. Int’l L. 316, 321 (1949).
39 U.N. GAOR, 3d Sess., 118th plen. mtg. at 866, U.N. Doc. A/PV.180 (Dec. 9, 1948).
40 Id. at 873; see also William A. Schabas, Introductory Essay: The Drafting and Significance of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: The Travaux Préparatoires cxviii (William A. Schabas ed., 2013).
41 Id. at cxiv-cvx.
42 Id. at lxxiii. See also Johannes Morsink, World War Two and the Universal Declaration, 15 Hum. Rts. Q. 357, 357 (1993).
43 87 Cong. Rec. 46-47 (1941).
44 G.A. Res. 217 (III) A, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, at 71-77 (Dec. 10, 1948).. The Preamble of the UDHR also refers to these four freedoms: “Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy the freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed the highest aspiration of the common people.” Id. at 71. See also U.N. GAOR, supra note 39, at 857.
45 Schabas, supra note 40, at lxxvi (citing Pan American Union, Inter-American Conference on War and Peace, Washington, DC: Pan American Union, 1945.).
46 United Nations Information Organization, 3 Dumbarton Oaks Proposals Comments and Proposed Amendments 2 (1945).
47 Rep. of the Comm. on Human Rights, at 3-4, U.N. Doc. E/38 (May 17, 1946).
48 William A. Schabas, Volume I, in The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: The Travaux Préparatoires 64 (William A. Schabas ed., 2013) (citing U.N. ESCOR, 2d Sess., 5th mtg., U.N. Doc. E/SR.19 (May 31, 1946)).
49 U.N. ESCOR Comm. on Human Rights Drafting Subcomm., 2d Sess., 21st mtg. at 7, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/AC.1/SR.21 (May 7, 1948).
50 See Draft Outline of International Bill of Human Rights (prepared by the Division of Human Rights), Comm. on Human Rights Drafting Subcomm., U.N. ESCOR at Arts 14-15, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/AC.1/3 (June 4, 1947); Text of Letter from Lord Dukeston, the United Kingdom Representative on the Human Rights Commission, to the Secretary-General of the United Nations at Arts. 13-14, Comm. on Human Rights Drafting Subcomm., U.N. ESCOR, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/AC.1/4 (June 5, 1947) (United Kingdom proposed draft International Bill of Human Rights); United States Suggestions for Redrafts of Certain Articles in the Draft Outline E/CN.4/AC.1/3 at Art. 15, Comm. on Human Rights Drafting Subcomm., U.N. ESCOR, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/AC.1/8 (June 11, 1947) (United States amendments). See also International Bill of Rights Documented Outline: Texts, Comm. on Human Rights, Drafting Subcomm., U.N. ESCOR, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/AC.1/3/Add.3 (June 10, 1947) (addenda to the draft outline)..
51 Schabas, supra note 48, at 303 (citing Communications Received Requesting the Inclusion of Certain Specific Provisions in the International Bill of Rights, Comm. on Human Rights, U.N. ESCOR, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/AC.1/6 (June 6, 1947)).
52 Comm’n. on Human Rights, Drafting Comm., Draft Int’l Declaration of Rights Submitted by Working Group of Drafting Comm., U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/AC.1/W.2/Rev.2, Art. 20, Art. 21 (1947); Comm’n on Human Rights, Drafting Comm., International Bill of Rights, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/AC.1/W.1, Art. 2 (1947).
53 Linde Lindkvist, Religious freedom and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 26–27 (2017).
54 Comm’n on Human Rights, Summary Rec. of Fourteenth Meeting, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/SR.14, at 3 (1947) Malik stated that the human person’s mind and conscience are their most sacred and inviolable possessions and that any social pressure from the state, religion, or race that involves automatic consent from the person is reprehensible. Id.
55 Id. at 6-7.
56 Comm’n on Human Rights, Drafting Comm., First Session, Summary Rec. of the Eighth Meeting, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/AC.1/SR.8, at 12-13 (June 20, 1947).
57 Comm’n on Human Rights, Drafting Comm., Int’l Bill of Rights, Suggestions Submitted by the Representative of France for Articles 7-32 of the International Declaration of Rights, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/AC.1/W.2/Rev.1, Art. 20 (June 18, 1947).
58 Comm’n on Human Rights, Second Session, Draft Annex A, Draft Int’l Declaration on Human Rights, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/77/Annex A (Dec. 16, 1947).
59 Comm’n on Human Rights, Sub-Comm’n on Freedom of Information and of the Press, Second Session, Summary Record of the Fourth Meeting, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.1/SR.27, at 3-4 (Jan. 22, 1948).
60 Id. at 4.
61 Id. at 6.
62 Comm’n on Human Rights, Rep. of the Second Session of the Sub-comm’n on Freedom of Info. and of the Press, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/80, at 4-5 (Feb. 6, 1948). This was later reworded as “freedom of expression.” Id.
63 Comm’n on Human Rights, Sub-Comm’n on Freedom of Info. and of the Press, Second Session, Rep. of the Comm. Appointed to Draft a Proposed Article for the Declaration on Human Rights, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.1/48 (Jan. 20, 1948).
64 Comm’n on Human Rights, Sub-Comm’n on Freedom of Information and of the Press, Second Session, Summary Record of the Fifth Meeting, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.1/SR.28 at 3-4 (Jan. 21, 1948); Draft Resolution, U.N. Doc. E/CONF.6/C.4/71 (Apr. 14, 1948), reprinted in 2 The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: The Travaux Préparatoires 1402 (William Schabas ed., 2013).
65 Comm’n on Human Rights, Third Session, Opinion of the United Nations Conference on Freedom of Information on Articles 17 and 18, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/84, at 2 (Apr. 30, 1948). Then-Art. 17(1) was later amended, by adding without interference by governmental action after the freedom of thought and freedom of expression. Id.
66 Comm’n on Human Rights, Third Session, Summary Rec. of the Sixtieth Meeting, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/SR.60, at 7 (June 23, 1948).
67 Id. at 10.
68 Id.
69 Id. at 11-13.
70 Id. at 13.
71 Comm’n on Human Rights, Rep. of the Third Session of the Commission on Human Rights, U.N. Doc. E/800 (June 28, 1948).
72 U.N. GAOR, 3rd sess., 145th plen. mtg. at 169, U.N. Doc. A/PV.145 (Sept. 27, 1948).
73 U.N. GAOR, 3rd sess., 3rd Comm. at 397-98, U.N. Doc. A/C.3/SR.127(Nov. 9, 1948); see also Susie Alegre, Freedom to Think: The Long Struggle to Liberate Our Minds 20 (2022).
74 U.N. Doc. A/PV.180, supra note 38, at 873.
75 U.N. Doc. A/C.3/SR.127, supra note 73, at 399.
76 Rep. of the Comm’n on Hum. Rts, supra note 71, at 37-39; U.N. GAOR, 3rd sess., 3rd Comm. at 47, U.N. Doc. A/C.3/SR.91 (Oct. 2, 1948). The USSR proposed an amendment to the UDHR that was rejected because it sought to prioritize the state over the individual’s dignity. The amendment stated that everyone has the right to freedom of thought and the freedom to practice their religion, but only as long as it complies with the laws of the country and public morality. Id.
77 U.N. GAOR, 3rd sess., 3rd Comm. at 406, U.N. Doc. A/C.3/SR.128.
78 See generally, U.N. GAOR, 3rd sess.,182d plen. mtg., U.N. Doc. A/PV.182 (Dec. 10, 1948).
79 G.A. Res. 217 (III) A Art. 18, Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Dec. 10, 1948).
80 Martin Scheinin, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: A Commentary 266 (Asbjørn Eide et al. eds., 1992).
81 Lindkvist, supra note 53, at 45.
82 Charles Malik, Human Rights and Religious Liberty, 1 EcumenicalRev. 404, 404 (1949).
83 UN Comm’n on Hum. Rts, 5th Sess., 117th mtg. at 3, Doc. E/CN.4/SR.117 (June 9, 1949).
84 Id.
85 Id. at 4. The Covenant was initially drafted as a single document in 1954. In 1966, it was opened for signature and ratified as two separate treaties: the ICCPR and International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). This separation was made in order to more clearly distinguish and specify the civil and political rights protected under the ICCPR and the economic, social and cultural rights protected under the ICESCR. See Daniel J. Whalen, Indivisible Human Rights: A History 112-18 (2011).
86 Marc J. Bossuyt, Guide to the “Travaux Préparatoires” of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 355 (1987).
87 UN Comm’n on Hum. Rts, 8th Sess., 319tth mtg. at 8, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/SR.319 (June 3, 1952).
88 UN GAOR, 15th Sess., 1022ndnd mtg. at 199, U.N. Doc. A/C.3/SR.1022 (Nov. 15, 1960).
89 Bossuyt, supra note 86.
90 UN Comm’n on Hum. Rts., supra note 83, at 8, 13.
91 UN GAOR, supra note 88.
92 G.A. Res. 2200 (XXI) Art. 18, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Dec. 16, 1966). Article18(1) of the ICCPR is identical to Article 18 of the UDHR except for a wording difference Id.; see also G.A. Res. 217 (III) A, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, supra note 51, at 74.
93 See UN Comm’n on Hum. Rts, supra note 83, at 6; U.N. ESCOR, 5th Sess., 116th mtg. at 14, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/SR.116 (June 17, 1949).
94 See U.N. ESCOR, Comm’n on Human Rights, 6th Sess.,174th mtg. at 6-8, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/SR.164 (May 1, 1950); see U.N. ESCOR, Comm’n on Human Rights, 8th Sess., 320th mtg. at 6, 11, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/SR.320 (June 18, 1952); Manfred Nowak, U.N. Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 441 (2nd rev. ed. 2005).
96 U.N. ESCOR, Comm’n on Human Rights, supra note 94.
97 Bossuyt, supra note 86, at 379; see U.N. ESCOR, Comm’n on Human Rights, 162nd mtg. at 8, 11, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/SR.162 (Apr. 28, 1950).
98 Nowak, supra note 94.
99 U.N. GAOR, 15th Sess., mtg. 1027th, at 227, U.N. Doc. A/C.3/SR.1027 (Nov. 18, 1960); see also, U.N. ESCOR, Comm’n on Human Rights, 5th Sess., 119th mtg., at 15, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/SR.119 (June 13, 1949).
100 U.N. GAOR, supra note 88, at ¶18.
101 U.N. GAOR, 15th Sess., 1024th mtg., at 210, U.N. Doc. A/C.3/SR.1024 (Nov. 16, 1960).
102 U.N. GAOR, 15th Sess., 1025th mtg., at ¶22, U.N. Doc. A/C.3/SR.1025 (Nov. 17, 1960).
103 Id. at ¶30.
104 U.N. GAOR, 15th Sess., 1026th mtg., ¶6, U.N. Doc. A/C.3/SR.1026 (Nov. 18, 1960).
105 U.N. GAOR, supra note 104, ¶¶ 26, 34; Arcot Krishnaswami (Special Rapporteur of the Comm’n on Prevention of Discrimination & Prot. of Minorities), Study of Discrimination in the Matter of Religious Rights and Practices, at 1 n.1, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/200/Rev.1 (1960).
106 U.N. GAOR, supra note 88, ¶6.
108 U.N. GAOR, 15th Sess., 1021st mtg., at ¶15 U.N. Doc. A/C.3/SR.1021 (Nov. 14, 1960).
109 U.N. GAOR, supra note 88, ¶ 11.
111 U.N. GAOR, supra note 104, ¶ 19.
112 Id.
113 U.N. GAOR, supra note 88, ¶ 23.
114 U.N. GAOR, supra note 104, ¶ 18.
116 See U.N. ESCOR, supra note 90, at 7-8.
117 Bossuyt, supra note 94, at 379.
118 See U.N. ESCOR, 6th Sess., 160th mtg., ¶¶ 45-46, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/SR.160 (Apr. 27, 1950); U.N. ESCOR, 6th Sess., 161st mtg., ¶ 89, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/SR.161 (Apr. 28, 1950) ; U.N. ESCOR, supra note 108, ¶ ; U.N. ESCOR, 6th Sess., 163d mtg., ¶ 32, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/SR.163 (May 2, 1950) ; U.N. ESCOR, 6th Sess., 165th mtg., ¶ 13, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/SR.165 (May 2, 1950) ; U.N. ESCOR, supra note 104, at 11.
119 Bossuyt, supra note 94, at 361.
120 U.N. ESCOR, supra note 94, at 7.
121 U.N. GAOR, supra note 104, ¶ 47.
122 Nowak, supra note 94, at 412.
123 Nowak, supra note 94, at 416.
124 The ECHR came into force in September 1953. The Convention in 1950, Council of Europe, https://www.coe.int/en/web/human-rights-convention/the-convention-in-1950 (last visited Apr. 9, 2023) [perma.cc/Y9J7-Z5F6].
125 William A. Schabas, The European Convention on Human Rights: A Commentary 65-66 (2015) (citing Stummer v. Austria [GC], no. 37452/02, [2011] ECHR, Partly Dissenting Opinion of Judge Tulkens §3) (stating that “‘further realisation’ allows for a degree of innovation and creativity, which may extend the scope of the Convention guarantees.”).
126 Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Nov. 4, 1950, 213 U.N.T.S. 222; Eur. Comm’n of Hum. Rts., Preparatory Work on Article 9 of the Eur. Convention on Hum. Rts. 2, Doc. ART9-DH(56)14 (1956).
127 “…be interpreted and applied so as to make its safeguards practical and effective.” Soering v. United Kingdom, 161 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) ¶87 (1989).
128 European Convention on Human Rights, supra note 126, at the 5th Recital.
129 Cyprus v. Turkey, no. 8007/77, Eur. Ct. H.R. at ¶11 (1978).
130 Eur. Consult. Ass., European Commission of Human Rights Preparatory Work on Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Doc. DH(56)14 (1945) (citing Concil of Europe Doc. AS(1)77, 204) [hereinafter “Preparatory work on Article 9”]; cf. also U.N. Secretary-General, Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression, U.N. Doc. A/66/290, ¶27 (Aug. 10, 2011).
131 Eur. Consult. Ass., European Commission of Human Rights Preparatory Work on Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Doc. CDH (75)6, 4 (1975).
132 Preparatory Work on Article 9, supra note 130, at ¶4.
133 Id. at ¶5-6 (citing Council of Europe Doc. AS(1)116, 288-289, ¶6; ESCOR, Report of the Fifth Session of the Commission on Human Rights to the Economic and Social Council, U.N. Doc. E/1371, 33 (1949). Then-Art 16 stated: “1- Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private…”. Id.
135 Schabas, supra note 125, at 419. The removed part stated: “…provided that nothing in this Convention may be considered as derogating from already existing national rules as regards religious institutions and foundations, or membership of certain confessions.” Id.
136 Preparatory Work on Article 9, supra note 145, at ¶18-19 (citing Council of Europe, Doc. AS(2)104, Art. 9, 1032-1033).
137 Id.
138 Tyrer v. United Kingdom, No.5856/72, Eur. Ct. H.R., ¶31 (1978).
139 Schabas, supra note 125, at 419-20.
140 Loukis G. Loucaides, The Right to Freedom of Thought as Protected by the European Convention on Human Rights, 1 Cyprus Hum. Rts. L. Rev., 79, 80 (2012).
141 Patrick O’Callaghan & Bethany Shiner, The Right to Freedom of thought in the European Convention on Human Rights, 8 Eur. J. Compar. L.& Governance 112, 144–45 (2021) (citing Pretty v. United Kingdom, no. 2346/02, Eur. Ct. H.R., ¶65 (2002); Christine Goodwin v. United Kingdom, no. 28957/95, Eur. Ct. H.R., ¶90 (2002).
142 Ivanova v. Bulgaria, No. 52435/99, Eur. Ct. H.R., ¶79 (2007); Masaev v. Moldova, No. 6303/05, Eur. Ct. H.R., ¶23 (2009).
143 Schabas, supra note 125, at 420-21; see generally Tamara Skugar and Others v. Russia, No. 40010/04, Eur. Ct. H.R. (2009); Blumberg v. Germany, no. 14618/03, Eur. Ct, H.R. (2008).
144 Ben P. Vermeulen & Marjolein van Roosmalen, Theory and Practice of the European Convention on Human Rights 738, 752 (P. van Dijk et al. eds., 2018).
145 See Eur. Ct. H.R., Guide on Article. 2 of Protocol I to the European Convention on Human Rights (Aug. 31, 2022).
146 See generally Kokkinakis v Greece, App. No. 14307/88, (May 25, 1993).
147 See generally Eweida and Others v. United Kingdom, App. Nos. 48420/10, 59842/10, 51671/10, & 36516/10 (Jan. 15, 2013).
148 O’Callaghan & Shiner, supra note 141, at 125. “In respect of Article 8 … the Court has held that the State’s margin of appreciation is narrower ‘where a particularly important facet of an individual’s existence or identity is at stake’. See Hämäläinen v. Finland [2014] ECHR no. 37359/09 at [42]. It hardly needs to be pointed out that freedom of thought is ‘a particularly important facet of an individual’s existence.’” Id. at 125 n.69.
149 Loucaides, supra note 140, at 86-87; see also Loukis G. Loucaides, The Right to Information, in Essays on the Developing Law of Human Rights 3, 19-23 (1995).
150 Handyside v. United Kingdom, App. No. 5493/72, ¶ 49 (Dec. 7, 1976).
151 Bayatyan v. Armenia, App. No. 23459/03, ¶ 120 (July 7, 2011); Church of Scientology Moscow v. Russia, App. No. 18147/02, ¶ 72 (Sept. 24, 2007); Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia and Others v. Moldova, App. No. 45701/99, ¶¶ 114–16 (Mar. 27, 2002).
152 Serif v. Greece, App. No. 38178/97, ¶ 53 (Mar. 14, 2000); Members of the Gladani Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses and 4 Others v. Georgia, App. No. 71156/01, ¶ 132 (Aug. 3, 2007); Leyla Sahin v. Turkey, App. No. 44774/98, ¶ 107 (Nov. 10, 2005).
153 O’Callaghan & Shiner, supra note 141, at 122.
154 Ahmed Shaheed (Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief), supra note 8, at ¶ 3.
155 Id. at ¶ 7.
156 Id. at ¶ 95 (quoting the submission received from Jan Christoph Bublitz).
157 U.N. Secretariat, Compilation of General Comments and General Recommendations Adopted by Human Rights Treaty Bodies, U.N. Doc. HRI/GEN/1/Rev.9 (Vol. 1), 206-207 (May 27, 2008).
158 See generally Clay Calvert, Freedom of Thought, Offensive Fantasies and the Fundamental Human Right to Hold Deviant Ideas: Why the Seventh Circuit Got It Wrong in Doe v. City of Lafayette, Indiana, 3 Pierce L. Rev. 125 (2005).
159 U.N. Secretariat, Compilation of General Comments and General Recommendations Adopted by Human Rights Treaty Bodies, U.N. Doc. HRI/GEN/1/Rev. 1, 35 (July 29, 1994).
160 See Nowak, supra note 94, at 412-13.
161 Id. at 413.
162 Id.
163 The Human Rights Committee made the determination that it was unnecessary to examine allegations of violations of freedom of thought in two cases, as they had already established violations of freedom of expression and freedom of association. See U.N. Hum. Rts. Comm., Views of the Human Rights Committee under Article 5, Paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Eighty-fourth Session Concerning Communication No. 1119/2002 U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/84/D/1119/2002, ¶ 7.4 (Aug. 23, 2005); see also U.N. Hum. Rts. Comm., Views of the Human Rights Committee under Article 5, Paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Sixty-fourth Session Concerning Communication No. 628/1995, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/64/D/628/1995, ¶ 10.5 (Nov. 3, 1998).
164 See U.N. Hum. Rts. Comm., Views of the Human Rights Committee Under Article 5, Paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Seventy-eighth Session Concerning Communication No. 878/1999, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/78/D/878/1999 (July 15, 2003) The HRC found that Mr. Kang’s freedom of thought, conscience, and religion were violated when he was imprisoned for refusing military service due to his religious beliefs. The government was ordered to prevent similar violations from occurring in the future. Id.
165 See Salonen v. Finland, App. No. 27868/95, (July 2, 1997) (rejecting Art. 9 claims because the desire to give a child a unique name did not fall within the scope of the right to freedom of thought and therefore could not be protected as a belief).
166 O’Callaghan & Shiner, supra note 141, at 132.
167 Hum. Rts. Comm., Gen. Comment Adopted by the Hum. Rts. Comm. Under Article 40, Paragraph 4, of the Int’l Covenant on Civ.& Pol. Affs., U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.4, ¶ 3 (Sep. 27, 1993).
168 Ahmed Shaheed (Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief), supra note 8, at ¶ 4.
169 Bublitz, supra note 21, at 1316.
170 See Jan C. Bublitz, The Nascent Right to Psychological Integrity and Mental Self-determination, in The Cambridge Handbook of New Human Rights 387, 387–93 (Andreas Von Arnauld, Kerstin Von Der Decken, & Mart Susi eds., 2020).
171 Jan C. Bublitz & Reinhard Merkel, Autonomy and Authenticity of Enhanced Personality Traits, 23 Bioethics 360, 368 (2009); Hyatt v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 943 S.W.2d 292, 297 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997) (The tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress requires that the defendant act intentionally or recklessly, engage in extreme and outrageous conduct, and cause severe emotional distress.).
172 See Gafgen v. Germany, App. No. 22978/05, ¶ 87 (June 1, 2010). The ECHR had to balance the absolute prohibition on torture with the obligation to hold a criminal accountable for their actions. The authorities attempted to extract information from the accused, leading to a conflict with the obligation to respect human rights. The ECHR had to weigh these competing considerations in reaching its decision. Id.
173 Jan C. Bublitz, Freedom of Thought as an International Human Right: Elements of a Theory of a Living Right, in 1 The Law and Ethics of Freedom of Thought, 94 (Marc Jonathan Blitz & Jan Christoph Blitz, eds., 2021).
174 Id. at 96.
175 Ahmed Shaheed (Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief), supra note 8, at ¶17.
176 U.S. Const. amend. I. (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press… .”).
177 Freedom of thought claims could also be relevant under the 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments.
178 If thought is protected to promote freedom of speech and communication, it is deemed to be protected intertwined. However, if thought is protected in itself, regardless of its expression, it is protected independently.
179 See Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705, 714 (1997). (“[T]he right of freedom of thought protected by the First Amendment against state action includes both the right to speak freely and the right to refrain from speaking at all.”).
180 See Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234, 253 (2002) (“The right to think is the beginning of freedom, and speech must be protected from the government because speech is the beginning of thought.”).
181 See, EU Charter of the Fundamental Rights art. 3(1) (“Everyone has the right to respect for his or her physical and mental integrity.”).
182 Ronald J. Krotoszynski Jr., Free Speech Paternalism and Free Speech Exceptionalism: Pervasive Distrust of Government and the Contemporary First Amendment, 76 Ohio St. L.J. 659, 660-61(2015).
183 Ravin v. State, 537 P.2d 494, 508 (Alaska 1975).
184 Krotoszynski, supra note 182, at 670.
185 See Dale Carpenter, The Antipaternalism Principle in the First Amendment, 37 Creighton L. Rev. 579, 637 (2004).
186 See Letter from Thomas Jefferson to David Humphreys (Mar. 18, 1789), in 14 The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, 8 October 1788 to 26 March 1789, 676-79 (Julian P. Boyd ed., 1958) (“There are rights which it is useless to surrender to the government, and which governments have yet always been found to invade. These are the rights of thinking, and publishing our thoughts by speaking and writing … .”).
187 Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 327 (1937) (Cardozo, J.) ("[O]ne may say that [the freedom of thought and speech] is the matrix, the indispensable condition, of nearly every other form of freedom.").