Reconsidering the absolute nature of the right to freedom of thought

Abstract

The right to freedom of thought (RFoT) is generally considered to imply three substantive freedoms: that inner thoughts shall not be impermissibly altered; that persons shall not be forced to reveal their unmanifested thoughts; and that persons shall not be punished for their thoughts. It is often assumed that the right protects these freedoms in an absolute way. This article challenges the assumption that the RFoT is completely absolute in established human rights law. Furthermore, it is submitted that the right - as currently understood in the literature - neither should be constructed, completely, in absolute terms. Rather, this article suggests to develop a limited number of implied limitations to some elements of the RFoT, provided that they may not impair the very essence of this right.