Cognitive liberty: Difference between revisions

Line 1:

'''Cognitive liberty''' (also known as '''"the right to mental self-determination"''') is the freedom of an individual to control his or her own mental processes, cognition, and consciousness. It has been argued to be both an extension of, and the principle underlying, the right to freedom of thought.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Sententia|first=Wrye|title=Neuroethical Considerations: Cognitive Liberty and Converging Technologies for Improving Human Cognition|journal=Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences|date=2004|page=223|doi=10.1196/annals.1305.014 |volume=1013}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last=Bublitz|first=Jan Christoph|author2=Merkel, Reinhard|title=Crime Against Minds: On Mental Manipulations, Harms and a Human Right to Mental Self-Determination|journal=Criminal Law and Philosophy|date=2014|volume=8|page=61}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last=Waterman|first=Daniel|editor-last=Hardison|editor-first=Casey William|title=Entheogens, Society & Law: Towards a Politics of Consciousness, Autonomy and Responsibility|publisher=Melrose Books|date=2013|page=18|isbn=9781908645616}}</ref>

Though a relatively recently defined concept, many theorists see cognitive liberty as being of increasing importance as technological advances in neuroscience allow for an ever-expanding ability to directly influence consciousness.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Walsh|first=Charlotte|title=Drugs and human rights: private palliatives, sacramental freedoms and cognitive liberty|journal=International Journal of Human Rights|date=2010|volume=14|issue=3|page=433|doi=10.1080/13642980802704270|url=https://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/law/postgraduate/phd-mphil-research/files/Drugs-and-human-rights-Walsh-2010.pdf|access-date=2015-05-16|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160208015630/https://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/law/postgraduate/phd-mphil-research/files/Drugs-and-human-rights-Walsh-2010.pdf|archive-date=2016-02-08}}</ref>

Though a relatively recently defined concept, many theorists see cognitive liberty as being of increasing importance as technological advances in neuroscience allow for an ever-expanding ability to directly influence consciousness.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Walsh|first=Charlotte|title=Drugs and human rights: private palliatives, sacramental freedoms and cognitive liberty|journal=International Journal of Human Rights|date=2010|volume=14|issue=3|page=433|doi=10.1080/13642980802704270|url=https://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/law/postgraduate/phd-mphil-research/files/Drugs-and-human-rights-Walsh-2010.pdf|access-date=2015-05-16|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160208015630/https://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/law/postgraduate/phd-mphil-research/files/Drugs-and-human-rights-Walsh-2010.pdf|archive-date=2016-02-08|url-status=dead}}</ref>

Cognitive liberty is not a recognized right in any international human rights treaties, but has gained a limited level of recognition in the United States, and is argued to be the principle underlying a number of recognized rights.<ref>Bublitz and Merkel, 60-1</ref>

Line 52:

===In the United Kingdom===

In the case of ''R v Hardison'', the defendant, charged with eight counts under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (MDA), including the production of [[DMT]] and [[LSD]], claimed that cognitive liberty was safeguarded by Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights.<ref>R v Hardison [2007] 1 Cr App R (S) 37</ref> Hardison argued that "individual sovereignty over one's interior environment constitutes the very core of what it means to be free", and that as psychotropic drugs are a potent method of altering an individual's mental process, prohibition of them under the MDA was in opposition to Article 9.<ref>Walsh, 433</ref> The court, however, disagreed, calling Hardison's arguments a "portmanteau defense" and relying upon the UN Drug Conventions and the earlier case of ''R v Taylor'' to deny Hardison's right to appeal to a superior court.<ref>Walsh, 437</ref> Hardison was convicted and given a 20-year prison sentence, though he was released on 29 May 2013 after nine years in prison.<ref>Walsh, 437</ref>

In the case of ''R v Hardison'', the defendant, charged with eight counts under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (MDA), including the production of [[DMT]] and [[LSD]], claimed that cognitive liberty was safeguarded by Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights.<ref>R v Hardison [2007] 1 Cr App R (S) 37</ref> Hardison argued that "individual sovereignty over one's interior environment constitutes the very core of what it means to be free", and that as psychotropic drugs are a potent method of altering an individual's mental process, prohibition of them under the MDA was in opposition to Article 9.<ref>Walsh, 433</ref> The court, however, disagreed, calling Hardison's arguments a "portmanteau defense" and relying upon the UN Drug Conventions and the earlier case of ''R v Taylor'' to deny Hardison's right to appeal to a superior court.<ref>Walsh, 437</ref> Hardison was convicted and given a 20-year prison sentence, though he was released on 29 May 2013 after nine years in prison.<ref>Walsh, 437</ref> Casey Hardison's arrest marked the first detected case of LSD manufacture inside the UK since 1978's arrest of chemists Richard Kemp and Munro<ref>http://www.drugwise.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Druglink-Jan-Feb-2011.pdf</ref>.

Richard Kemp had originally written an 8,000 word defence statement for his arrest in the UK police investigation [[Operation Julie]] but was advised by his lawyers against using it. It was released at the time to a journalist at the Cambrian News who précised it under the headline ‘Microdoctrine – the tenets behind Kemp’s LSD’. The gist of Kemp’s defence was that LSD was a catalyst for social change, the motive was the ideal not the money.

==Criticism==

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 '''Cognitive liberty''' (also known as '''"the right to mental self-determination"''') is the freedom of an individual to control his or her own mental processes, cognition, and consciousness. It has been argued to be both an extension of, and the principle underlying, the right to freedom of thought.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Sententia|first=Wrye|title=Neuroethical Considerations: Cognitive Liberty and Converging Technologies for Improving Human Cognition|journal=Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences|date=2004|page=223|doi=10.1196/annals.1305.014 |volume=1013}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last=Bublitz|first=Jan Christoph|author2=Merkel, Reinhard|title=Crime Against Minds: On Mental Manipulations, Harms and a Human Right to Mental Self-Determination|journal=Criminal Law and Philosophy|date=2014|volume=8|page=61}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last=Waterman|first=Daniel|editor-last=Hardison|editor-first=Casey William|title=Entheogens, Society & Law: Towards a Politics of Consciousness, Autonomy and Responsibility|publisher=Melrose Books|date=2013|page=18|isbn=9781908645616}}</ref>
-Though a relatively recently defined concept, many theorists see cognitive liberty as being of increasing importance as technological advances in neuroscience allow for an ever-expanding ability to directly influence consciousness.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Walsh|first=Charlotte|title=Drugs and human rights: private palliatives, sacramental freedoms and cognitive liberty|journal=International Journal of Human Rights|date=2010|volume=14|issue=3|page=433|doi=10.1080/13642980802704270|url=https://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/law/postgraduate/phd-mphil-research/files/Drugs-and-human-rights-Walsh-2010.pdf|access-date=2015-05-16|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160208015630/https://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/law/postgraduate/phd-mphil-research/files/Drugs-and-human-rights-Walsh-2010.pdf|archive-date=2016-02-08}}</ref>
+Though a relatively recently defined concept, many theorists see cognitive liberty as being of increasing importance as technological advances in neuroscience allow for an ever-expanding ability to directly influence consciousness.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Walsh|first=Charlotte|title=Drugs and human rights: private palliatives, sacramental freedoms and cognitive liberty|journal=International Journal of Human Rights|date=2010|volume=14|issue=3|page=433|doi=10.1080/13642980802704270|url=https://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/law/postgraduate/phd-mphil-research/files/Drugs-and-human-rights-Walsh-2010.pdf|access-date=2015-05-16|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160208015630/https://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/law/postgraduate/phd-mphil-research/files/Drugs-and-human-rights-Walsh-2010.pdf|archive-date=2016-02-08|url-status=dead}}</ref>
 Cognitive liberty is not a recognized right in any international human rights treaties, but has gained a limited level of recognition in the United States, and is argued to be the principle underlying a number of recognized rights.<ref>Bublitz and Merkel, 60-1</ref>
@@ Line 52: / Line 52: @@
 ===In the United Kingdom===
-In the case of ''R v Hardison'', the defendant, charged with eight counts under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (MDA), including the production of [[DMT]] and [[LSD]], claimed that cognitive liberty was safeguarded by Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights.<ref>R v Hardison [2007] 1 Cr App R (S) 37</ref> Hardison argued that "individual sovereignty over one's interior environment constitutes the very core of what it means to be free", and that as psychotropic drugs are a potent method of altering an individual's mental process, prohibition of them under the MDA was in opposition to Article 9.<ref>Walsh, 433</ref> The court, however, disagreed, calling Hardison's arguments a "portmanteau defense" and relying upon the UN Drug Conventions and the earlier case of ''R v Taylor'' to deny Hardison's right to appeal to a superior court.<ref>Walsh, 437</ref> Hardison was convicted and given a 20-year prison sentence, though he was released on 29 May 2013 after nine years in prison.<ref>Walsh, 437</ref>
+In the case of ''R v Hardison'', the defendant, charged with eight counts under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (MDA), including the production of [[DMT]] and [[LSD]], claimed that cognitive liberty was safeguarded by Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights.<ref>R v Hardison [2007] 1 Cr App R (S) 37</ref> Hardison argued that "individual sovereignty over one's interior environment constitutes the very core of what it means to be free", and that as psychotropic drugs are a potent method of altering an individual's mental process, prohibition of them under the MDA was in opposition to Article 9.<ref>Walsh, 433</ref> The court, however, disagreed, calling Hardison's arguments a "portmanteau defense" and relying upon the UN Drug Conventions and the earlier case of ''R v Taylor'' to deny Hardison's right to appeal to a superior court.<ref>Walsh, 437</ref> Hardison was convicted and given a 20-year prison sentence, though he was released on 29 May 2013 after nine years in prison.<ref>Walsh, 437</ref> Casey Hardison's arrest marked the first detected case of LSD manufacture inside the UK since 1978's arrest of chemists Richard Kemp and Munro<ref>http://www.drugwise.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Druglink-Jan-Feb-2011.pdf</ref>.
+Richard Kemp had originally written an 8,000 word defence statement for his arrest in the UK police investigation [[Operation Julie]] but was advised by his lawyers against using it. It was released at the time to a journalist at the Cambrian News who précised it under the headline ‘Microdoctrine – the tenets behind Kemp’s LSD’. The gist of Kemp’s defence was that LSD was a catalyst for social change, the motive was the ideal not the money.
 ==Criticism==