We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected]
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
In recent discussions on the right to freedom of thought (RFoT) it has been emphasised that for an adequate understanding, development, and application of the right, one should consider how the RFoT relates to or complements other rights, such as the right to mental privacy, mental integrity and the freedom of expression. In this chapter, we examine the interrelationship between the RFoT and the protection of mental privacy and mental integrity. Considering the case of employing emerging neurotechnology in criminal justice, we explore how the absolute protection offered by the RFoT relates to the qualified protection of mental privacy and mental integrity offered by the right to respect for private life. We argue that, depending on the interpretation of these rights, they have the potential to overlap, which raises the need to develop a legal mechanism to distinguish absolute from qualified protection of mental privacy and mental integrity. We suggest three general factors that could be relevant in this regard: (1) the mental effects of an interference and the method of inducing them, (2) the victim’s vulnerability, and (3) the context of a mental interference.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.