DNAprotection
Well-Known Member
what if technology was developed that would allow for basic control of a humans thought?
i pose this question outside of the context of any reasonable voluntary scenario such as agreeing to hypnosis or signing up for the military etc...
in other words for example a technology that one might be exposed to through tv, radio. computer or cell phone etc that would/could be used by the corpsgov on you to help with 'national security' etc and so such would naturally be 'classified' project etc...
im not implying that such a thing is or isn't going on, i'm just reaching for a viable example in effort to put the question in a reasonable context...
freedom of 'speech' = the expression of thought, so the freedom to think must come before that imo lol...
freedom of thought it seems to me is in part directly related to your 'conscience' and in that context it seems that such freedoms would be protected under the 1st amendment within the words that come before any mention of speech...
"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."
and so regardless of what you think or believe or understand about who and what you are and your notions of right and wrong etc it seems that if you have no use for the first words in the first amendment then you have no real constitutional protection for your human right to think...
what do you think?
i pose this question outside of the context of any reasonable voluntary scenario such as agreeing to hypnosis or signing up for the military etc...
in other words for example a technology that one might be exposed to through tv, radio. computer or cell phone etc that would/could be used by the corpsgov on you to help with 'national security' etc and so such would naturally be 'classified' project etc...
im not implying that such a thing is or isn't going on, i'm just reaching for a viable example in effort to put the question in a reasonable context...
freedom of 'speech' = the expression of thought, so the freedom to think must come before that imo lol...
freedom of thought it seems to me is in part directly related to your 'conscience' and in that context it seems that such freedoms would be protected under the 1st amendment within the words that come before any mention of speech...
"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."
and so regardless of what you think or believe or understand about who and what you are and your notions of right and wrong etc it seems that if you have no use for the first words in the first amendment then you have no real constitutional protection for your human right to think...
what do you think?