A/76/380 religion, people may think critically about what religion calls for in how we live life and in giving full effect to religious practice, including worship, observance and teaching. D. Attributes of the right to freedom of thought 25. Beyond absolute protection, 50 relatively little is clear about the right’s core elements or “attributes”. Below, the Special Rapporteur maps four possible attributes of the right based on international human rights jurisprudence and commentary: (a) not being forced to reveal one’s thoughts; (b) no punishment and/or sanctions for one’s thoughts; (c) no impermissible alteration of one’s thoughts; and (d) States fostering an enabling environment for freedom of thought. 1. Freedom not to reveal one’s thoughts 26. In discussing freedom of thought in its general comment No. 22, the Human Rights Committee asserted that, “[i]n accordance with articles 18 (2) and 17[of the International Covenant], no one can be compelled to reveal his thoughts” 51 implying that “mental privacy” is a core attribute of freedom of thought. The right not to reveal one’s thoughts against one’s will arguably includes “the right to remain silent”, without explaining such silence. 52 Meanwhile, United States courts recognize that an individual’s right to privacy encompasses mental privacy. 53 2. Freedom from punishment for one’s thoughts, real or inferred 27. That States must never punish or sanction people for their mere thoughts, including beliefs, desires, fantasies and unexecuted intentions, is widely considered to be an attribute of freedom of thought. Such protection is predicated on the principle that everyone is free to think whatever they wish within their inner mind. Since any limitation on forum internum is impermissible, States or non-State actors may violate this attribute when they punish an individual for their thoughts, regardless of whether those thoughts were accurately identified or not. Nonetheless, as technological advances increase the possibility of accurately decoding or inferring one’s inner mind accurately, clear parameters and protections for forum internum rights need urgent consideration. 3. Protection from impermissible alteration of thought 28. Several commentators contend that freedom of thought protects against alteration of one’s thoughts, in particular circumstances. This is a complex matter to delineate because, in reality, our thoughts are perpetually influenced by others. Parents entice their children to eat healthily, companies persuade consumers to buy their products through glossy advertising, and policymakers use “nudges” to influence citizens’ behaviour towards desired outcomes, including for organ donation, nutrition and environmental conservation. 54 These specific examples may not often evoke human rights concerns, but they nonetheless raise questions about what __________________ 50 51 52 53 54 21-14191 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 22 (1993) (HRI/GEN/1/Rev.9 (Vol. I), pp. 204–205, paras. 1 and 3). See also Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 34 (2011) (CCPR/C/GC/34), para. 5; and A/HRC/31/18, para. 17. Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 22 (1993) (HRI/GEN/1/Rev.9 (Vol. I), p. 205, para. 3). CCPR/C/106/D/1786/2008, p. 17. Long Beach City Employees Assn. v. City of Long Beach (1986); Stanley v. Georgia (1969). See https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:818442/FULLTEXT01.pdf. 9/28