human-rights interpretation
Would continuing asking one to provide rationale violate freedom of thought?
<p>From the psychological aspect, there are many people with <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit_attitude" rel="nofollow noreferrer" title="Implicit attitude - Wikipedia">implicit attitude</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prejudice" rel="nofollow noreferrer" title="Prejudice - Wikipedia">prejudice</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_distortion" rel="nofollow noreferrer" title="Cognitive distortion - Wikipedia">cognitive distortion</a>, etc. The common factor is that they are unwilling to consider the possibility that their belief may be wrong, and if someone isn't convinced of what they say, they will either rage or dismiss. The <strong>only</strong> way to stop them is, as far as I know, via social pressure. For illustration, please watch the movie <a href="https://archive.org/details/12AngryMen1957" rel="nofollow noreferrer" title="12 Angry Men ( 1957) : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive">12 Angry Men</a>.</p>
<p>Now, would doing such a thing violate <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_thought" rel="nofollow noreferrer" title="Freedom of thought - Wikipedia">freedom of thought</a>? If they say &quot;it's my right to not listen to you&quot;, then would it be wrong to keep asking them to provide logical arguments, regarding their explicit statement to not continuing the conversation?</p>
<p>From <a href="https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/index.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer" title="Universal Declaration of Human Rights | United Nations">Universal Declaration of Human Rights | United Nations</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Article 18:</strong> Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.</p>
<p><strong>Article 19:</strong> Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The definitions of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harassment" rel="nofollow noreferrer">harassment</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalking" rel="nofollow noreferrer">stalking</a>, as in my understanding, involve the disrespect of the actor to the receiver's <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Well-being" rel="nofollow noreferrer">well-being</a> (or <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happiness" rel="nofollow noreferrer">happiness</a>, or <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality_of_life" rel="nofollow noreferrer">quality of life</a>). However, in this case, the opposite is true: because the actor respects the receiver's well-being, therefore they have to do this. If they don't do this, then they are in fact not respect the receiver's well-being. Otherwise they wouldn't need to do this at all.</p>
<p>This photo can help illustrate this. The anti-mask protest is stopped by medical staffs.</p>
<p><img src="https://scontent.fvca1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/93520269_2538590223048938_2878467002807091200_n.jpg?_nc_cat=107&amp;_nc_sid=8024bb&amp;_nc_ohc=a3tEsz4GsAcAX_AcYTi&amp;_nc_ht=scontent.fvca1-2.fna&amp;oh=343b3704625422ef0bed6a3bf4a6ff90&amp;oe=5EC98007" alt="" /></p>

<p>I do not believe this would be a violation of freedom of thought. The person being asked is free to leave, and free not to answer despite the repeated requests for an answer.</p>

<p>Extended <em>following</em> and asking might run afoul of stalking/harassment laws, but that's jurisdiction-dependent and probably not a human rights violation.</p>

<p>"Freedom of thought" does not mean "freedom from the thoughts or expressions of other people" or "the right to override another person's freedom of expression". It means that the government cannot pass a law that forces you to think a particular way. A country may have a legal requirement that everyone must believe a certain thing, which would count as a "violation of freedom of thought". Unless your country has laws governing correct / legal thought, you cannot be free from the existence of others' thoughts.</p>

<p>The right to <em>express</em> your thoughts is legally limited in various ways. Some expressions are prohibited, for various reasons – fraud, threats, deceptive advertising, defamation. This may also include politically unacceptable expression, such as so-called hate-speech (which may include racially-insensitive speech) – such laws don't exist in the US because of the First Amendment.</p>

<p>There are also legal limits on the means of expression. For example, you cannot physically force a person to be subjected to your expression (chaining them up, locking them in a room); you cannot trespass onto the property of others without permission to express yourself. You cannot publically harass a person, even to express your thoughts. The boundary between public harassment (illegal) and public expression (legal) is not sharp. Harassment laws generally include an element of fear, that a person reasonably fears that the other person will do them harm. In the context where A is standing on the sidewalk and B approaches and non-threateningly expresses ideas that A does not like, A must either ignore the offense, or must leave, at least in a nation with First Amendment like freedom of speech.</p>

<p><a href="https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2996&amp;context=articles" rel="nofollow noreferrer">This article</a> addresses the philosophical reasons why thoughts crimes should not punished. </p>
