Cognitive Liberty: The Foundational Civil Liberty of the AI Age

Report body

Cognitive Liberty: The Foundational Civil Liberty of the AI Age

The rapid proliferation of artificial intelligence, advanced neurotechnology, pervasive digital surveillance, and machine-mediated information architectures has triggered a profound, irreversible shift in the vulnerability of the human mind. Throughout history, the inner workings of human cognition—the forum internum—have been regarded as an impenetrable sanctuary, naturally insulated from state coercion, corporate extraction, and systemic manipulation. This innate biological firewall is now rapidly dissolving. As technologies evolve to infer, predict, and manipulate mental states with unprecedented granularity, a novel legal, ethical, and philosophical framework is urgently required to protect the sanctity of human thought. Cognitive liberty, broadly understood as the right to mental self-determination, has emerged as the essential paradigm for navigating this landscape. The proposition that cognitive liberty must be recognized as the foundational civil liberty of the digital and neurotechnological age stems from a stark, structural reality: if human beings lose the capacity to think, investigate, and reason privately, all subsequent liberties—including speech, religion, assembly, and due process—are rendered fundamentally hollow.

Defining Cognitive Liberty in a Multidisciplinary Context

Cognitive liberty is a multidimensional concept that seamlessly bridges constitutional law, international human rights, neuroethics, and data privacy. The term was coined circa 2000 by neuroethicist Wrye Sententia and legal theorist Richard Glen Boire, the co-founders of the Center for Cognitive Liberty and Ethics (CCLE)1. In its initial formulation, Sententia and Boire defined cognitive liberty as the right of each individual to think independently and autonomously, to use the full spectrum of their mind, and to engage in multiple modes of thought1. Originally framed within the context of psychopharmacology, cognitive enhancement, and the "war on drugs," Boire and Sententia argued that the right to control one's own consciousness and electrochemical thought processes is the necessary substrate for almost every other freedom in a democratic society2.
As neurotechnology and algorithmic surveillance have advanced over the past two decades, the definition of cognitive liberty has necessarily expanded. Legal scholar Jan Christoph Bublitz refined the concept as "mental self-determination," arguing that it should be recognized as a basic human right guaranteeing an individual's absolute sovereignty over their mind1. In contemporary neuroethics, the prevailing framework proposed by Marcello Ienca and Roberto Andorno identifies four distinct "neurorights" necessary to protect human cognition: cognitive liberty, mental privacy, mental integrity, and psychological continuity3. Similarly, legal scholar Nita Farahany has posited cognitive liberty as an overarching umbrella right that encompasses mental privacy, freedom of thought, and self-determination1.
A comprehensive definition of cognitive liberty in the age of artificial intelligence must therefore incorporate a spectrum of both negative and positive liberties, reflecting the complex interplay between the biological brain and external digital environments. It encompasses the freedom of thought and inquiry, which serves as the absolute right to internally generate, process, and explore ideas without external penalty, algorithmic impediment, or surveillance. It also mandates mental privacy, defined as the right to prevent the non-consensual extraction, decoding, or inference of one's neural data, emotional states, and cognitive patterns. Intellectual autonomy forms another pillar, representing the capacity to make up one's mind free from covert, algorithmically optimized behavioral manipulation, hyper-personalized propaganda, or digital "dark patterns"7.
Furthermore, cognitive liberty must protect the freedom to read and search. This is the ability to explore information spaces privately, without one's inquiries being logged, profiled, and weaponized to restrict future societal or economic opportunities9. Finally, the framework includes the freedom to use or refuse cognitive tools. This establishes the right to utilize cognitive enhancers—whether pharmacological, neurotechnological, or AI-driven—while preserving the absolute right to refuse their mandatory application in employment, educational, or penal settings1. Together, these elements form a matrix of protection that addresses not just what a person thinks, but the foundational infrastructure of how a person thinks.

Philosophical and Historical Foundations of the Forum Internum

The conceptual roots of cognitive liberty draw upon a long philosophical tradition that places the internal mind at the apex of human dignity. John Stuart Mill's seminal text On Liberty (1859) is frequently cited as a foundational anchor for this framework, with its emphasis on the "inward domain of consciousness" as the primary and most vital region of human liberty1. For Mill, the freedom to form one's own thoughts was the precondition for any meaningful participation in a free society. Decades later, within the United States constitutional tradition, Justice Benjamin Cardozo famously articulated the legal centrality of this concept, stating that freedom of thought is "the matrix, the indispensable condition, of nearly every other form of freedom"1.
Historically, because state actors and private entities lacked the technological means to penetrate the skull, legal systems assumed that protecting outward expression was sufficient to protect the inner mind. The battleground for liberty was the printing press, the public square, and the physical assembly. Censorship, book banning, and the suppression of dissident speech were the primary vectors of tyranny. Boire and Sententia drew an explicit historical analogy between the banning of books and the prohibition of cognitive tools, arguing that both interventions are fundamentally designed to restrict the capacity to generate ideas1. However, the modern paradigm has shifted from the censorship of the output of the mind (speech) to the manipulation of the inputs and the surveillance of the processing mechanism itself.
In international human rights law, this internal domain is known as the forum internum. Article 18(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) protect the freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. A landmark 2021 report by Ahmed Shaheed, the former United Nations Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief (UN Doc A/76/380), clarified that the right to freedom of thought provides absolute, unconditional protection to the internal process of thought prior to expression12. Shaheed identified four core attributes of this absolute right: individuals cannot be forced to reveal their thoughts; individuals cannot be penalized for their thoughts; inner thoughts cannot be impermissibly altered; and states bear a positive obligation to foster an environment conducive to intellectual freedom13. For decades, the right to freedom of thought faced a "latent existence" in human rights law because it was considered practically impossible to violate13. The advent of AI and neurotechnology has abruptly ended this latency, transforming a theoretical absolute right into an urgent operational necessity.

The Insufficiency of Traditional Free Speech Protections

The foundational premise of modern constitutional democracies is that robust free speech protections guarantee a free society. The marketplace of ideas relies on the assumption that rational actors, exposed to a diversity of viewpoints, will arrive at the truth through public discourse. However, a profound vulnerability in this paradigm has been exposed by the digital age: traditional free-speech jurisprudence is primarily reactive, focusing on protecting the expression of a fully formed idea. It offers vanishingly little protection to the fragile, private processes through which those ideas are conceived, researched, and refined.
When the primary threat to liberty is no longer overt state censorship, but rather the subtle, pervasive control over the digital infrastructure of inquiry, the First Amendment and its international equivalents find themselves severely strained. To function effectively, the freedom of speech requires a meaningful degree of what legal scholar Neil Richards terms "intellectual privacy." Intellectual privacy is the ability, whether protected by law or social circumstances, to develop ideas and beliefs away from the unwanted gaze or interference of others10. When individuals are acutely aware that their reading habits, search queries, dwell times, and intellectual explorations are being meticulously logged, behaviorally profiled, and monetized, a profound chilling effect occurs. This surveillance distorts the formation of novel, dissenting, or unorthodox ideas long before they ever materialize as speech10.
Furthermore, AI systems and machine-mediated architectures exert a structural influence over the cognitive domain that evades traditional free-speech paradigms entirely. The mechanisms of control have migrated upstream. The threats to a free society increasingly involve algorithmic curation dictating what information a person can discover. Search engines and recommendation algorithms do not merely organize information; they rank, suppress, and elevate content based on opaque optimization metrics, quietly bounding the perimeter of human inquiry. If a system buries certain perspectives, the user's freedom of inquiry is restricted not by a government decree, but by a commercial algorithm.
This dynamic is vastly accelerated by the deployment of Large Language Models (LLMs) and generative AI. As individuals increasingly turn to AI as intellectual sparring partners, researchers, and personal advisors, the guardrails programmed into these systems dictate what questions a person can ask and what an AI system will answer. Safety-aligned AI models, designed to avoid generating harmful, offensive, or controversial content, inherently restrict a user's ability to explore complex or taboo subjects. While these guardrails serve vital safety functions, they simultaneously represent a privatization of ideological boundaries, substituting open intellectual exploration with sanitized, machine-mediated compliance.
Beyond information access, the construction of behavioral profiles from an individual's inquiries poses an existential threat to cognitive liberty. Machine learning models construct intimate psychological profiles based on the micro-interactions of a user's daily digital life. These systems draw highly accurate inferences about an individual's beliefs, mental states, intentions, political affiliations, sexuality, physical health, and personality vulnerabilities15. These inferences are not merely stored; they are operationalized. They are used to determine creditworthiness, employability, insurance premiums, and vulnerability to specific manipulative advertising.
Armed with these intimate cognitive profiles, recommendation engines and digital platforms utilize predictive nudging and dark patterns to engage in covert behavioral manipulation. By exploiting known subconscious biases, these systems alter behavior to maximize engagement, drive consumption, or even influence electoral outcomes, entirely bypassing the user's conscious, rational deliberation3. A society that permits its citizens to speak their minds, but quietly allows corporate or state architectures to control how those minds are made up, cannot meaningfully claim to preserve freedom of speech. Allowing the free exchange of ideas while restricting or manipulating the cognitive infrastructure that receives and processes them is logically incoherent and democratically fatal2.

Intersection with Established Rights and Constitutional Doctrine

Translating the abstract concept of mental privacy into actionable legal protections requires mapping cognitive liberty onto existing constitutional frameworks. This exercise reveals significant gaps where 20th-century jurisprudence fails to anticipate 21st-century technological capabilities.

The First Amendment and the "Freedom of Mind"

In the United States, the Supreme Court has occasionally gestured toward a standalone constitutional protection for the mind, distinct from the protection of speech. In the seminal 1969 case Stanley v. Georgia, the Court ruled that the mere private possession of obscene materials could not be criminalized. The Court noted that the State "cannot constitutionally premise legislation on the desirability of controlling a person's private thoughts," establishing a robust vision of the First Amendment that fiercely protects the "freedom of mind"7. Stanley articulated that individuals possess an inherent right to receive information and ideas, regardless of their societal worth, in order to form their own thoughts privately9.
However, courts have historically struggled to define the contours of this freedom independent of expression. As immersive virtual realities and neuro-technologies proliferate, this ambiguity becomes a critical vulnerability. For instance, if advanced neuro-feedback devices, cognitive enhancers, or fully immersive virtual environments (akin to philosopher Robert Nozick's hypothetical "Experience Machine") are utilized by an individual to shape their internal mental states without resulting in any outward speech or action, it remains an open constitutional question whether the government can regulate these cognitive environments without violating the First Amendment17. If freedom of thought is truly absolute, as scholars suggest, then the state's power to dictate what an individual experiences within their own digitally mediated consciousness is constitutionally suspect18.

The Fourth and Fifth Amendments: The Physical vs. Testimonial Divide

The rapid advancement of neural imaging and brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) poses an existential challenge to criminal procedure, particularly regarding the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Historically, Fifth Amendment jurisprudence has relied on a rigid dichotomy established in Schmerber v. California (1966), which aggressively distinguishes between "physical" evidence and "testimonial" evidence19. Under Schmerber, physical evidence (such as a blood draw, a DNA swab, or a fingerprint) can be legally compelled by the state, whereas testimonial evidence (such as a verbal confession) is shielded by the privilege against self-incrimination19.
Neurotechnologies systematically collapse this dualism. Techniques such as functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) or electroencephalography (EEG)-based concealed information tests are designed to detect experiential traces encoded in the subject's brain19. For example, a P300 brainwave test detects an involuntary spike in neurological activity when a subject recognizes a highly specific piece of information, such as the face of a victim or the specific model of a murder weapon19. Is this brain wave a physical, biological emanation of the body, akin to a racing heartbeat, or is it the neuro-biological equivalent of a testimonial confession?
If courts classify neural data merely as unprivileged physical evidence, law enforcement could legally bypass the mouth and interrogate the brain directly, rendering the Fifth Amendment's protection of the inner sanctum of the mind entirely obsolete15. Legal scholars and neuroethicists argue that Fifth Amendment doctrine must urgently evolve to dispense with the physical/testimonial dichotomy. Instead, the inquiry must focus on whether the state is eliciting or "evoking" mental contents or cognitive knowledge from the suspect19. Consequently, brain searches must be conceptualized not as the taking of non-invasive physical samples, but as highly intrusive searches of protected, private information within a space of presumed absolute privacy19.

Bodily Autonomy, Due Process, and Academic Freedom

The defense of cognitive liberty also intersects heavily with the right to bodily autonomy. Many jurisdictions recognize a legal right to bodily integrity, understood as a right against significant, nonconsensual interference with one's body7. Extending this logic, legal theorists argue that if a society accepts a legal right to bodily integrity, it must, on pain of philosophical inconsistency, accept an analogous legal right to mental integrity—a right against significant, nonconsensual interference with one's mind7.
Due process is similarly imperiled by the absence of cognitive liberty. The presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial are eroded by predictive policing models and AI risk assessments that rely on behavioral inferences to gauge criminal intent. If AI-driven emotion recognition software or neurotechnologies are deployed at border crossings, in employment screenings, or in parole hearings to infer a propensity for deception or a specific emotional disposition, individuals risk being subjected to preemptive law enforcement intervention or denied fundamental opportunities on the basis of thoughts they never acted upon19.
Furthermore, cognitive liberty is the invisible bedrock of academic freedom. Academic inquiry relies on the unrestricted ability to explore controversial hypotheses and challenge established dogmas. If the digital tools that modern researchers rely upon—from academic search engines to analytical AI—are constrained by algorithmic profiling or safety guardrails that flag unorthodox inquiries as dangerous, the trajectory of human knowledge is structurally bounded. Academic freedom cannot survive if the cognitive tools of academia are engineered to enforce ideological conformity.

The Technological Threat Matrix: Realistic vs. Speculative Threats

To construct a durable and pragmatic legal framework, policymakers must rigorously distinguish between sensationalist science fiction and the urgent, realistic technological threats currently embedded in digital ecosystems. The defense of cognitive liberty must address the mundane, emergent consequences of consumer technology, not merely the hypothetical nightmares of totalitarian brain-implants.

A critical distinction must be drawn between intentional restrictions and emergent consequences. While an autocratic regime might intentionally weaponize AI for social scoring, mass surveillance, and the punishment of religious or political minorities (a direct assault on the forum internum), the erosion of cognitive liberty in democratic societies is frequently a byproduct of commercial imperatives8. Digital platforms extract vast amounts of behavioral data to train predictive models, not necessarily with the malicious intent to control minds, but to generate advertising revenue and maximize user retention. However, the emergent consequence is identical: the construction of digital architectures that bypass rational deliberation, exploit psychological vulnerabilities, and subtly curate the boundaries of human inquiry3. This surveillance capitalism operates as an ambient, structural threat to cognitive liberty that is often more pervasive than direct state action.

Legislative and Regulatory Responses

Recognizing the accelerating threat to mental privacy and autonomy, jurisdictions globally have begun to pioneer legislative and constitutional responses. These efforts reflect an ongoing, high-stakes debate over whether to establish entirely new, standalone "neurorights" or to expand existing data privacy and civil rights frameworks to encompass biological and neural data15.

Constitutional Innovations: The Chilean Model

In 2021, Chile achieved a global milestone by becoming the first nation to amend its constitution to explicitly protect cognitive liberty. Law No. 21.383 modified the final clause of Article 19, Number 1 of the Chilean Constitution to establish that scientific and technological development must respect the physical and mental integrity of individuals. The amendment explicitly mandates that the law will protect brain activity and the information derived from it27. This constitutional elevation of neuro-rights sets a profound precedent, explicitly tethering the commercial and scientific use of neurotechnology to the preservation of human mental autonomy29.

Sectoral Prohibitions: The EU AI Act

The European Union has adopted an aggressive, risk-based approach to governing cognitive and behavioral technologies. Article 5 of the sweeping EU AI Act outlines prohibited AI practices that are deemed to present an unacceptable risk to fundamental human rights. Notably, Article 5(1)(f) explicitly prohibits the use of AI systems to infer the emotions of natural persons in the areas of workplace and educational institutions, except when strictly intended for medical or safety reasons22. Furthermore, the Act bans AI systems that deploy subliminal techniques beyond a person's consciousness to materially distort their behavior in a manner that causes harm32. This legislative action represents a powerful recognition that cognitive liberty is structurally compromised when power asymmetries (such as those between an employer and employee, or a teacher and student) are combined with advanced cognitive surveillance.

US State Privacy Laws: Expanding the Definition of Sensitive Data

In the United States, in the absence of a comprehensive federal data protection regime, individual states have begun amending existing consumer privacy laws to categorize neural and biological data as highly protected "sensitive personal information." This categorization triggers strict opt-in consent requirements and mandates data-protection assessments34.
Colorado emerged as a leader in this space in 2024 by passing HB 24-1058, which amended the Colorado Privacy Act (CPA) to robustly protect "biological data." The legislation defines biological data as data generated by the measurement of an individual's biological, physiological, or neural properties used for identification purposes. Crucially, the statute explicitly incorporates "neural data" into this definition, defining it broadly as information generated by the measurement of the central or peripheral nervous system activity that can be processed by a device36. The legislative declaration accompanying HB 24-1058 powerfully notes that because every human brain is unique, neural data always contains distinct, sensitive information that links back to an identifiable individual, and its collection inherently involves the involuntary disclosure of intimate information36.
Following Colorado's precedent, California enacted SB 1223, amending the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) to specifically include neural data as a subcategory of sensitive personal information39. The California definition specifies that neural data is generated by measuring nervous system activity "and that is not inferred from nonneural information"39. Concurrently, California enacted AB 1008, a landmark bill establishing that "personal information" can exist within artificial intelligence systems capable of outputting such data. This ensures that AI developers and deployers must consider LLMs as potential repositories of personal information, forcing them to abide by CCPA regulations regarding the deletion and correction of sensitive cognitive data utilized in AI training26.
Furthermore, addressing the specific intersection of AI, cognitive inference, and employment, the Illinois Artificial Intelligence Video Interview Act (AIVIA, 820 ILCS 42) mandates that employers notify applicants and obtain their consent before using artificial intelligence to analyze video interviews42. Because these systems often utilize facial analysis, vocal intonation, and micro-expressions to infer personality traits and emotional stability, they border on rudimentary cognitive profiling. By requiring transparency, the Illinois law attempts to mitigate the unconsented extraction of cognitive inferences in high-stakes socioeconomic environments44.

Evaluating the Proposition: The Matrix of Human Liberty

The central proposition—that if humans lose the ability to think, investigate, question, read, search, experiment, and reason privately without permission or profiling, many other liberties become substantially weaker even if they technically remain on the books—warrants rigorous, balanced evaluation.

Arguments in Favor of the Proposition

The arguments in favor of this proposition posit that if cognitive liberty falls, a structural domino effect undermines the entirety of the liberal democratic order. Human rights are philosophically and legally predicated on the assumption of an autonomous, rational agent capable of self-determination2. If the inner sanctum is compromised, the outer liberties become merely performative.
First, the loss of cognitive liberty results in the hollowification of free speech. Freedom of speech serves the pursuit of truth, individual self-actualization, and democratic self-governance. If an individual's intellectual curiosity is preemptively chilled by the knowledge that their web searches, prompt histories, and reading habits are continuously surveilled, scored, and retained, they will instinctively self-censor their thoughts before those thoughts ever reach the stage of public speech8. Speech becomes a curated performance of compliance rather than a reflection of genuine intellectual exploration.
Second, the right to freedom of association relies entirely on individuals choosing their affiliations based on shared, privately formulated beliefs. If algorithms can infer political or religious leanings from raw neurological or behavioral data long before an individual formally joins a group or attends a meeting—and if state actors or private insurers penalize those inferred leanings—association becomes an intolerable liability15.
Third, the freedom of religion and belief is eviscerated. The right to hold, explore, or change a religious or philosophical belief (the forum internum) is absolute under international law13. If immersive technologies, algorithmic social environments, or future neuro-stimulators are deployed to enforce ideological conformity, execute coercive proselytism, or subtly manipulate spiritual beliefs, the fundamental capacity for spiritual self-determination is obliterated12.

Arguments Against the Proposition

Conversely, robust arguments exist that challenge the apocalyptic framing of cognitive liberty, suggesting that human adaptability and existing legal frameworks are sufficient, and that over-regulation risks stifling human progress.
First, the philosophical theory of the "extended mind" posits that human cognition is not strictly bound by the biological skull; it organically incorporates external tools, from pen and paper to smartphones, and eventually AI7. Under this view, algorithmic personalization and AI assistants do not necessarily degrade human autonomy; they augment it. Regulating AI or neurotechnology too aggressively in the name of preserving a purely biological definition of "cognitive liberty" could perversely restrict a citizen's positive right to enhance their own intelligence, memory, or computational capacity7. For example, if a neuro-pharmacological drug or a neural implant that dampens the emotional weight of traumatic memories allows a victim to function in society, restricting that technology in the name of preserving "authentic" cognitive states violates their liberty to alter their own mind4.
Second, proponents of personalized digital ecosystems argue that behavioral profiling provides immense utilitarian benefits, reducing friction, curing information overload, and hyper-optimizing education and healthcare. To claim that algorithmic curation destroys freedom of thought may deeply underestimate human cognitive resilience. Individuals are perfectly capable of critical reasoning and can navigate recommended content without inevitably becoming automatons stripped of agency.
Finally, some legal theorists argue that the concept of "cognitive liberty" is redundant15. Existing doctrines—such as the international prohibition of torture, the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, consumer protection laws barring unfair and deceptive practices, and comprehensive data protection regimes like the GDPR—can be seamlessly adapted to govern neurodata and AI inferences without needing to invent novel, highly complex constitutional categories7.

Synthesis

While it is undeniably true that humans are resilient and that cognitive enhancement technologies hold immense therapeutic promise, the structural vulnerabilities introduced by AI-driven inference and neuro-surveillance are historically unprecedented. The "extended mind" theory, rather than refuting cognitive liberty, actually strengthens the necessity for it: if our smartphones, search engines, and AI assistants are literal, functional extensions of our cognitive architecture, then corporate surveillance of those devices is tantamount to a wiretap on the brain8.
As Justice Cardozo articulated, freedom of thought is the "matrix" of all other freedoms1. The law must proactively and fiercely secure this matrix. Existing privacy frameworks, which rely heavily on a broken paradigm of "notice and consent" through unread terms of service, are hopelessly inadequate when applied to the subconscious, involuntary emanations of the human nervous system and the opaque complexities of algorithmic inference21. The proposition therefore holds: without the explicit protection of cognitive liberty, the rights written in constitutional texts become a facade masking a deeply managed and surveilled populace.

Conclusion and A Proposed Cognitive Liberty Bill of Principles

The transition from a society that primarily protects human action and expression to one that must actively protect human cognition is the defining legal and ethical challenge of the AI age. The historical reliance on freedom of speech is no longer sufficient; defending the forum internum requires recognizing that the mind itself, and the digital tools that extend it, represent an environment requiring robust, modernized legal insulation. Without a protected sphere of intellectual privacy, the foundational premise of liberal democracy—the self-governing, rational, autonomous citizen—collapses under the weight of algorithmic optimization and neurological surveillance.
To ensure that the fundamental rights of the individual survive the rapid advancements in artificial intelligence and neurotechnology, jurisdictions globally must operationalize the absolute right to freedom of thought. The following Cognitive Liberty Bill of Principles outlines the minimum, non-derogable rights that must remain inviolable regardless of technological change:

1. The Principle of Mental Privacy and Neural Sovereignty: Every individual possesses an absolute, inalienable right against the non-consensual extraction, recording, decoding, or commercial monetization of their neural data, physiological markers of emotion, and inferred cognitive states. Neural data and biological proxies for thought must be legally classified with the highest degree of sensitivity, strictly prohibiting their use for behavioral profiling, predictive penalization, or unauthorized mass surveillance.
2. The Principle of Intellectual Autonomy and Protection from Manipulation: Individuals have a fundamental right to form their beliefs free from covert manipulation. The deployment of subliminal techniques, highly personalized algorithmic "dark patterns," and predictive nudging designed to materially distort decision-making by deliberately bypassing conscious, rational deliberation shall be treated as a severe violation of fundamental civil liberties.
3. The Principle of Safe Intellectual Exploration: The right to freedom of thought inherently extends to the digital environments that facilitate thought. Individuals possess a right to intellectual privacy in their reading, searching, and prompt-based interactions with AI systems. Digital information architectures and educational platforms must provide unprofiled, unmonitored pathways for intellectual inquiry, ensuring that curiosity is not weaponized against the user.
4. The Principle of Cognitive Self-Determination: No individual shall be compelled by an employer, educational institution, insurance provider, or state actor to utilize neurotechnologies, brain-computer interfaces, or psychoactive substances that monitor, alter, or optimize cognitive states. The choice to use or refuse cognitive enhancement or monitoring tools remains the exclusive, highly protected domain of the individual.
5. The Principle of Neurological Immunity (The Fifth Amendment Extension): The biological emanations of the human mind, including brainwaves, inferred emotional states, and subconscious neural reactions, shall be strictly categorized as protected, testimonial information. Law enforcement and state actors are permanently prohibited from using neuro-assays, emotion recognition artificial intelligence, or electro-chemical concealed information tests to bypass the right against self-incrimination or to subvert the presumption of innocence.

Works cited

1. Cognitive Liberty - IIW 42 Material, https://tongomayel.com/cognitive_liberty/
2. Cognitive Liberty: A Brief History - ResearchGate, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/399348082_Cognitive_Liberty_A_Brief_History
3. On Neurorights - PMC, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8498568/
4. On Neurorights - Frontiers, https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/human-neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2021.701258/full
5. Towards new human rights in the age of neuroscience and ... - PMC, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5447561/
6. From neurorights to neuroduties: the case of personal identity., https://bioethicsopenresearch.org/articles/2-1
7. Cognitive Liberty and Rights to (and Against) Cultural and Chemical, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/399342939_Cognitive_Liberty_and_Rights_to_and_Against_Cultural_and_Chemical_Transformations_of_the_Mind
8. Freedom of Thought for the Extended Mind: Cognitive Enhancement, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228193971_Freedom_of_Thought_for_the_Extended_Mind_Cognitive_Enhancement_and_the_Constitution
9. The Right to Freedom of Thought in the United States (Chapter 21), https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-handbook-of-the-right-to-freedom-of-thought/right-to-freedom-of-thought-in-the-united-states/D1092BD01FD289EDA461BA8EEF39C174
10. Intellectual Privacy, https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1508&context=law_scholarship
11. Freedom of Thought at the Ethical Frontier of Law & Science, https://commons.allard.ubc.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1691&context=fac_pubs
12. Interim Report of the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/401467911_Interim_Report_of_the_Special_Rapporteur_on_Freedom_of_Religion_or_Belief_Indigenous_Peoples_and_the_Right_to_Freedom_of_Religion_or_Belief
13. Reconsidering the absolute nature of the right to freedom of thought, https://academic.oup.com/hrlr/article/25/3/ngaf018/8155294
14. an interdisciplinary analysis of the UN special rapporteur's report, https://cora.ucc.ie/bitstreams/87f4b2a2-9434-4dd6-831a-18440f6b2006/download
15. Ninth Amendment Neurorights - Digital Repository @ Maurer Law, https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=11589&context=ilj
16. California and Colorado Establish Protections for Neural Data, https://www.afslaw.com/perspectives/alerts/california-and-colorado-establish-protections-neural-data
17. The Freedom of 3D Thought: The First Amendment in Virtual Reality, https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3515&context=clr
18. The Right to an Artificial Reality? Freedom of Thought and the, https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1031&context=mtlr
19. pre-publication draft subject to modification, https://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2256&context=fac_pubs
20. The Case For Mental Privacy And Neuro-Rights Oltre la privacy dei, https://universitypress.unisob.na.it/ojs/index.php/ejplt/article/download/2248/1799
21. Beyond Data Privacy: The Case For Mental Privacy And Neuro-Rights, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/401128777_Beyond_Data_Privacy_The_Case_For_Mental_Privacy_And_Neuro-Rights
22. Emotion Recognition - Blue Arrow, https://bluearrow.ai/emotion-recognition/
23. Cognitive liberty. A first step towards a human neuro-rights declaration, https://www.academia.edu/35223838/Cognitive_liberty_A_first_step_towards_a_human_neuro_rights_declaration
24. EU AI Act Emotion Ban and Customer Sentiment Analysis - Thematic, https://getthematic.com/insights/eu-ai-act-emotion-recognition-sentiment-analysis
25. Red Lines under EU AI Act: Unpacking the prohibition of emotion, https://fpf.org/blog/red-lines-under-eu-ai-act-unpacking-the-prohibition-of-emotion-recognition-in-the-workplace-and-education-institutions/
26. Understanding AB-1008 and Its Impact on Privacy Protections for, https://www.simbo.ai/blog/understanding-ab-1008-and-its-impact-on-privacy-protections-for-personal-information-in-ai-systems-2071548/
27. Neurorights in Chile: Between neuroscience and legal science, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354940433_Neurorights_in_Chile_Between_neuroscience_and_legal_science
28. Neurorights: comparing some perspectives on legal reform in global, https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/human-neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2026.1873948/full
29. Even Chile's Neurorights Leave Inferred Mental Data in a Gray Zone, https://law.stanford.edu/2026/04/27/even-chiles-neurorights-leave-inferred-mental-data-in-a-gray-zone/
30. View of Chilean neurorights legislation and its relevance for mental, https://revistasaludmental.gob.mx/index.php/salud_mental/article/view/SM.0185-3325.2023.034/4265
31. Is Emotion Recognition at Work Legal in EU? No - 2026 | teamed., https://www.teamed.global/insights/is-emotion-recognition-at-work-legal-in-eu
32. EU AI Act Article 5 (Prohibited AI Practices) - CASRAI, https://casrai.org/dictionary/term/eu-ai-act-article-5-prohibited-ai-practices
33. Deep dive into the AI Act - Part 5: Prohibited AI practices - GDPR, https://gdpr.blog.hu/2024/07/11/deep_dive_into_the_ai_act_part_5_prohibited_ai_practices
34. “Key Issues Raised by Colorado's Brain Data Privacy Bill,” Law360, https://www.alston.com/en/insights/publications/2024/04/key-issues-raised-by-colorado
35. Defining “Neural Data” in U.S. State Privacy Laws, https://fpf.org/blog/the-neural-data-goldilocks-problem-defining-neural-data-in-u-s-state-privacy-laws/
36. HOUSE BILL 24-1058 BY REPRESENTATIVE(S) Kipp and Soper, https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/2024a_1058_signed.pdf
37. Colorado Amends Privacy Act with H.B. 1058, Adding New, https://www.hunton.com/privacy-and-cybersecurity-law-blog/colorado-amends-privacy-act-with-h-b-1058-adding-new-protections-for-biological-and-neural-data
38. Colorado House (2024A) - Protect Privacy of Biological Data, https://www.billsponsor.com/bills/512169/colorado-house-bill-1058-session-2024a
39. California Consumer Privacy Act Expands Definitions, https://natlawreview.com/article/california-amends-key-ccpa-definitions
40. Upcoming California Consumer Privacy Act Amendments, https://www.pryorcashman.com/publications/upcoming-california-consumer-privacy-act-amendments
41. California Consumer Privacy Act, https://privacyrights.org/resources-tools/law-overviews/california-consumer-privacy-act
42. AI Guidelines for Hiring and Employment - HR.uillinois.edu, https://www.hr.uillinois.edu/policy/a_i_guidelines_for_hiring_and_employment
43. AI Hiring Compliance, Automated - EmployArmor, https://www.employarmor.com/resources/illinois-aivia-compliance-guide
44. New Illinois AI Law Requires Employee Notice, Affirms Existing, https://www.seyfarth.com/news-insights/legal-update-new-illinois-ai-law-requires-employee-notice-affirms-existing-employer-nondiscrimination-duties.html
45. AIVIA: A STEP TOWARDS PROTECTING DATA PRIVACY OR A, https://lawreview.law.uic.edu/news-stories/aivia-a-step-towards-protecting-data-privacy-or-a-continuation-of-the-push-for-individuals-to-trade-their-privacy-rights-for-employment/
46. The Legal and Ethical Implications of Memory Dampening, https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1572&context=faculty