Do we have freedom of thought?

[Slartibartfast]

Freedom of thought is not explicitly spelled out in The Constitution, do we actually have this right?

 

[ttwtt78640]

Other - consider criminal intent based on thought or criminal (gross) negligence based on the lack thereof. Granted that both require evidence of some resulting action (or inaction), yet both are based on having the ‘bad‘ thoughts behind those decisions.

I suppose you could say that we are free to think whatever we want, yet that ‘right’ is useless if those thoughts can‘t be acted upon.

 

[Logician Man]

Freedom of thought is not explicitly spelled out in The Constitution, do we actually have this right?

Good question. I'll get back with you. I need to think about that one.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Good question. I'll get back with you. I need to think about that one.

Here is some reading, this question may come up as technology develops.

Technology that reads and changes brain activity challenges privacy | Science News

An onslaught of new technology aims to listen to — and maybe even change — your brain activity. Readers, scientists and ethicists grapple with the ethical implications of new ways to get inside the skull.

www.sciencenews.org

 

[FurriesRock]

Freedom of thought is not explicitly spelled out in The Constitution, do we actually have this right?

I would say that in theory, yes, but in practice, no.

Freedom of Speech implies freedom of thought; however, our history in America proves that some thoughts are forbidden, or at least highly frowned upon.

The fact that people can be cancelled for expressing a belief in Holocaust denial tells me that there are forbidden thoughts, and this is not the only example. In the past it was practically forbidden to be supportive of homosexual rights, pre-marital sex, to be a communist, and even further back it was dangerous in some reasons to express the thought that slavery was morally wrong.

That certain thoughts are considered forbidden is real, but the exact thoughts which are forbidden change over time.

 

[Eriech]

Freedom of thought is not explicitly spelled out in The Constitution, do we actually have this right?

Even though some don't think before they speak "thought" is covered well in the first ammendment.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Here is some reading, this question may come up as technology develops.

Technology that reads and changes brain activity challenges privacy | Science News

An onslaught of new technology aims to listen to — and maybe even change — your brain activity. Readers, scientists and ethicists grapple with the ethical implications of new ways to get inside the skull.

www.sciencenews.org

You are now entering into whether the government may search or alter your thoughts. That would seem to be a matter of due process.

 

[Slartibartfast]

I would say that in theory, yes, but in practice, no.

Freedom of Speech implies freedom of thought; however, our history in America proves that some thoughts are forbidden, or at least highly frowned upon.

The fact that people can be cancelled for expressing a belief in Holocaust denial tells me that there are forbidden thoughts, and this is not the only example. In the past it was practically forbidden to be supportive of homosexual rights, pre-marital sex, to be a communist, and even further back it was dangerous in some reasons to express the thought that slavery was morally wrong.

That certain thoughts are considered forbidden is real, but the exact thoughts which are forbidden change over time.

Those are expressions of thought, not thought. We have freedom of expression (known as speech from a constitutional and legal perspective)

 

[MrNiceGuy]

Freedom of thought is not explicitly spelled out in The Constitution, do we actually have this right?

It is difficult to square having freedom of speech without first having freedom of thought. One must think of something before one speaks or writes it.

 

[Slartibartfast]

It is difficult to square having freedom of speech without first having freedom of thought. One must think of something before one speaks or writes it.

So we an example of a right that is not explicitly mentioned in the constitution then?

 

[Blue Dog]

I have to cogitate on the question….

 

[Crovax]

Freedom of thought is not explicitly spelled out in The Constitution, do we actually have this right?

Once congress finds a way to regulate it we probably will not.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Once congress finds a way to regulate it we probably will not.

May indeed be indeed up to a future vote since its not mentioned in the constitution.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

Freedom of thought is not explicitly spelled out in The Constitution. Do we actually have this right?

Yes it is.

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; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Notice religious beliefs and practicing a religion are separated here. We have the right to believe (or not believe) anything.

 

[NatMorton]

I would say that in theory, yes, but in practice, no.

Freedom of Speech implies freedom of thought; however, our history in America proves that some thoughts are forbidden, or at least highly frowned upon.

The fact that people can be cancelled for expressing a belief in Holocaust denial tells me that there are forbidden thoughts, and this is not the only example. In the past it was practically forbidden to be supportive of homosexual rights, pre-marital sex, to be a communist, and even further back it was dangerous in some reasons to express the thought that slavery was morally wrong.

That certain thoughts are considered forbidden is real, but the exact thoughts which are forbidden change over time.

I think you nailed it with the freedom of speech argument. It is entirely irrational to believe the framers intended to protect someone's right to say "George Washington is a fathead" but not their right to think it.

One literally cannot say or write words without first thinking of those words.

 

[FurriesRock]

I think you nailed it with the freedom of speech argument. It is entirely irrational to believe the framers intended to protect someone's right to say "George Washington is a fathead" but not their right to think it.

One literally cannot say or write words without first thinking of those words.

This is exactly true!

 

[Slartibartfast]

Yes it is.



Notice religious beliefs and practicing a religion are separated here. We have the right to believe (or not believe) anything.

freedom of religion implies freedom of thought, but its not spelled out. Its hard to have one without the other though, I agree.

However, this is a great example that the constitution can imply freedoms without explicitly enumerating them.

 

[Slartibartfast]

I think you nailed it with the freedom of speech argument. It is entirely irrational to believe the framers intended to protect someone's right to say "George Washington is a fathead" but not their right to think it.

One literally cannot say or write words without first thinking of those words.

Exactly, one enumerated right can imply another not enumerated.

 

[donhughesmusic]

Yes, everyone of us has freedom of thought. We can think anything we want and no one can stop us. It is the expression of those thoughts that is the issue.

For example: Someone is a racist, but does not express that thought to others.

 

[NatMorton]

It gets interesting when you consider hate crimes.

If you hit a man over the head because he insulted your spouse you might get, say, two years in jail for assault and battery. If, instead, you hit him over the head because of the color of his skin perhaps you get four years because it's also a hate crime.

The physical act and the harm done are the same, so are those added two years in prison punishment for a thought crime?

 

[bluesmoke]

My thoughts are so free, I donate them.

 

[Slartibartfast]

My thoughts are so free, I donate them.

My thoughts might be worth less than even that.

 

[jonny5]

Freedom of thought is not explicitly spelled out in The Constitution, do we actually have this right?

Freedom is inherent, not defined by the Constitution, so yes.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Freedom is inherent, not defined by the Constitution, so yes.

polling option #2 probably fits your belief.

 

[bluesmoke]

It gets interesting when you consider hate crimes.

If you hit a man over the head because he insulted your spouse you might get, say, two years in jail for assault and battery. If, instead, you hit him over the head because of the color of his skin perhaps you get four years because it's also a hate crime.

The physical act and the harm done are the same, so are those added two years in prison punishment for a thought crime?

A "hate" crime is not a "thought" crime:

Are "Hate Crimes" the Same Thing as "Thought Crimes"?: Opponents of the Federal Hate Crime Bill Invoke Free Speech | FindLaw

Read Legal Commentary: Are "Hate Crimes" the Same Thing as "Thought Crimes"?: Opponents of the Federal Hate Crime Bill Invoke Free Speech at FindLaw.com

supreme.findlaw.com

Interesting you should pick out race for your example. There's also sex, national origin, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or gender identity. At least you picked out who are most discriminated against.

You also have no proof that the underlying crime sentence is normally doubled if a hate crime.