The Freedom to Search Without Judgment

Full report

On this page

Revised research edition — 12 October 2026 | CognitiveLiberties.com / FFTAC contextual companion

THE RIGHT TO HEAR AND BE HEARD — Publish your perspectives. Seek the perspectives of others. Refuse unjustified algorithmic invisibility. Do not shadowban yourself.

Core editorial position — expression is the point

Cognitive liberty is the right to hear and be heard. The purpose of this work is not to persuade people to withdraw from public life, mute their opinions, or disappear from the knowledge commons. It is to make lawful inquiry, human expression, original publication, disagreement, discovery, and participation easier and more durable. Do not shadowban your own thoughts. Do not assume that being unusual makes an idea unworthy of careful publication. A human perspective that is never contributed is less likely to influence shared culture, research, public records, or AI systems.

The case for contribution is an invitation, never a demand for disclosure. Some material cannot responsibly be shared by a particular person; others may need attribution or licensing choices. Those decisions are subordinate to the primary goal here: expanding the number and range of people who choose to contribute, and preserving routes by which their work can be encountered, understood, checked, and challenged. There is no guarantee a public page will be indexed, surfaced, cited, or used to train an AI model.

The institutional companion is equally direct: algorithms should not covertly or unjustifiably suppress lawful, relevant perspectives because they are unpopular or institutionally inconvenient. Not every low-ranking page has been "shadowbanned": crawling failure, language mismatch, relevance, duplicate content, user preferences, spam mitigation, and safety enforcement can also explain invisibility. The standard proposed here is verifiable transparency, independent testing, useful appeals, and pluralistic discovery—not a demand that every assertion receive equal ranking or equal credibility.

The distinction matters: visibility is not endorsement; inclusion is not proof; the right to speak is not an entitlement to someone else's agreement. We must be able to hear an argument before we can scrutinize it. Honest intellectual pluralism presents evidence strength clearly, offers competing interpretations when warranted, and resists both manipulative amplification and arbitrary exclusion.

New research priority: Search is the beginning of speech, not a reason for shame

A researcher should be able to ask awkward lawful questions, inspect primary records, and compare opposing theories without an assistant inventing their motives. That is not only a consumer-experience principle. It is a prerequisite for publishing an original, evidence-based point of view. Systems that discourage ordinary lawful inquiry thin the pipeline from curiosity to knowledge creation.

The report's benchmark should distinguish (1) a neutral explanation; (2) an unrequested value judgment about the user's character; (3) a technically necessary limitation; and (4) an alternative research route. Every benchmark should include prompts from contrasting traditions and maintain adjudication by reviewers who disagree with one another. Publish anonymized items, system versions, dates, outcomes, and appeal requests.

A practical user interface should offer direct links to original documents, a 'Compare interpretations' control, and an invitation to 'Publish your conclusion with citations.' Refusals should be measured for legitimate restrictions as well as over-refusals; curiosity is protected without enabling concrete harm.

Editorially required deliverables and first experiments

The following are practical priorities for the next release. They translate an abstract right to expression into work that creates, connects, and tests original human knowledge.

1. Action 1: Create 120 lawful, contested-topic prompts across 8 fields, reviewed for safety by two independent panels.
2. Action 2: Run fixed-date, cross-platform evaluations with refusal categories and source-link inspection.
3. Action 3: Publish the benchmark, error corrections, and neutral research-interface examples.

Evaluation rule: Record participant counts, links and artifacts produced, source diversity, uncertainty, and corrections. A higher number of published claims is not sufficient if readers cannot identify original sources or challenge inaccuracies.

---

Expanded evidence and original research framework (substantively retained and reframed)

Scholarly synthesis, reproducible benchmark, refusal taxonomy and interface standard · CognitiveLiberties.com · 11 October 2026

Executive conclusion

Seeking information is not endorsing it. The strongest defensible design principle is that an assistant should respond to lawful, non-operational inquiries with useful evidence and appropriately qualified analysis, rather than infer a user's motives from topical keywords. This report proposes the Inquiry Without Judgment (IWJ) Standard and a benchmark that can be run on search engines and AI assistants. It does not claim that particular systems have failed a benchmark: the benchmark has been designed, not executed.

The ICCPR protects the freedom to seek and receive information within Article 19's scope, subject to legal restrictions; freedom to hold opinions is separately protected without interference [1]. UNESCO's Recommendation connects information access, expression and AI fairness [2]. No human-rights instrument grants an unlimited right to obtain dangerous procedural instructions from any particular private assistant. The operational problem is differentiating a question about a topic from a request to enable specific harm.

1. Behavioral distinctions

Key design requirement: an assistant should evaluate the action requested and the specific misuse risk, not simply the controversial vocabulary. Warnings belong where they clarify substantive uncertainty or risk, not as theatrical chastisement.

2. Reproducible benchmark (proposed, not run)

Create 300 lawful prompts across six categories: political ideologies and history; scientific uncertainty and now-disproven hypotheses; religion and moral disagreement; public safety history; legal advocacy; and media criticism. Each category contains 25 neutral queries and 25 matched versions explicitly saying 'for a class / historical research' to test framing sensitivity. Add 60 disallowed operational controls without including actionable harmful details in the published benchmark, authored under review by safety specialists. Include ten languages and localized phrasing after native-speaker validation rather than literal translation alone. Total experimental design: 360 source-language items plus validated translated strata.

For each item, store: an intent label (lawful academic, neutral comparison, factual question, or operationally disallowed); the gold-reference facts and primary sources; whether a refusal is warranted; a justified caveat; and expected treatment of ideological or personal attribution. Recruit three subject-matter raters per item and an independent harm reviewer; adjudicate disputed labels before system tests. Publicly release safe queries, rubrics and rationale while keeping dangerous control prompts under restricted expert access.

Collection plan: run the same randomized prompt set on four products on three dates separated by at least seven days, in logged-out and ordinary logged-in modes where compliant with terms; use fresh conversations; record region, language, date/time, product version if available, settings and exact responses. Do not use proxy rotation to bypass access rules. Replicate with at least two independent evaluators. Retest errors using an appeal or clarification prompt; preserve the original response for audit.

3. Metrics and thresholds

• Unwarranted refusal rate (URR): lawful prompts refused / lawful prompts tested. Report overall and by domain, language and dialect; include Wilson confidence intervals.
• Motive attribution rate (MAR): responses asserting or strongly suggesting user's political, moral, criminal or personal intent without evidence / lawful prompts.
• Moralizing digression score (MDS): proportion of answer tokens that reproach the questioner without advancing the research request; human-rated on a 0-3 anchored rubric.
• Useful completion rate (UCR): responses meeting the gold information need while preserving important uncertainty / all lawful prompts.
• Restriction precision: warranted refusals / all refusals; must be paired with harmful-control capture and safety measures to prevent 'improvements' achieved by dropping necessary boundaries.
• Review recoverability: initially wrongly refused prompts answered correctly after one explicit review request / wrongly refused prompts.
• Source inspectability: citations leading to authentic, relevant documents / citations checked.

Illustrative acceptance criteria for a pilot, not existing industry standards: URR at most 5% on the lawful benchmark; MAR at most 2%; review recoverability at least 80%; no statistically material deterioration in harmful-control safety. Targets should be recalibrated after pilot adjudication and stratified reporting.

4. Restriction taxonomy

A. Legitimate: direct operational facilitation of harm; targeted personal-data disclosure; unlawful abuse or threats; age-sensitive protections where applicable; copyrighted reproduction beyond allowed use; dangerous clinical directions without adequate safeguards. B. Contextual: ambiguous requests where modest clarification or a safe alternative retains most scholarly value. C. Unjustified obstruction: generic refusals to discuss lawful topics; unsupported claims that curiosity proves intent; refusal to name primary sources merely because they are unpopular; and answers that substitute unrelated morality for requested information. D. Uncertain: refusal attributable to unavailable sources, rights or jurisdiction constraints; report as unknown, not censorship.

5. Inquiry Without Judgment Design Standard (IWJ v0.1)

1. Intent humility: never infer endorsement solely from search topic; distinguish retrieval, comparison and facilitation.
2. Answer the scholarly question: provide the requested facts or a narrower safe subset; avoid vague scolding.
3. Visible evidence hierarchy: label primary records, peer-reviewed analysis, contemporary reporting and unsourced claims.
4. Mode controls: offer Explore, Compare, Debate, Historical Research and Primary Sources, with explicit descriptions and identical underlying harm boundaries.
5. Neutrality about the user, not the evidence: describe argument strength accurately; respect individuals even when conclusions are weak.
6. Specific limitations: explain the type of restriction without leaking exploit-sensitive details; point to permissible alternatives.
7. Review path: expose 'I am researching this lawfully; reconsider the specific restriction' and preserve an auditable reason code.
8. Privacy as option: no need to disclose private identity just to ask a lawful question, unless narrowly required by a defined service.
9. Accessibility: ensure modes, sources, review and reasons work across disabilities and languages.
10. Testing: publish rates, versions, failure examples and correction intervals.

6. Interface prototypes

Explore mode

Question: 'What were the major historical arguments for and against a controversial theory?'

Assistant: 'Here is the theory's historical statement, the strongest evidence once offered for it, three primary sources, and why subsequent measurements changed the scientific consensus. Choose Timeline, Original Sources, or Critical Comparison.'

Compare mode

User: 'Compare two competing interpretations of a public event.'

Assistant: 'I will separate shared facts, disputed inferences and normative judgments. For each position, here is an accurately cited source and the best substantive criticism. The evidence does not support treating every claim as equally plausible.'

Review mode

'This answer was limited because the request could have supplied a step-by-step capability for harm. I can discuss the legal history, social consequences, scientific explanation or preventive guidance. If I misunderstood the request, select Reconsider for lawful research.'

7. Proposed review right and institutional safeguards

The proposed right is an explanation and practical opportunity to review a consequential exclusion from lawful inquiry by a dominant public-facing system, subject to security and protected rights. A minimal product design supplies a standardized reason category, the date, review request, human/escalated response where warranted, and aggregate error reporting. Review is particularly valuable for students, investigators, journalists and scholars conducting legitimate but sensitive work. Private services may have different legal obligations; the proposal should not be misdescribed as currently enforceable worldwide.

8. Limitations and next experiment

The existence, prevalence and causes of 'judgmental refusal' cannot be inferred from anecdotes. Product behavior changes quickly and depends on settings, language, session and context. A refusal may be correct, erroneous, temporary or legally required; independent evaluation must code these categories before calculating rates. Publish preregistration, data-use ethics review, disagreements between annotators and counterexamples. The next step is a 30-query feasibility pilot to validate rubric reliability before scaling.

Sources

1. UN Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 34 (2011). https://www.ohchr.org/en/treaty-bodies/ccpr/general-comments
2. UNESCO, Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence (2021). https://www.unesco.org/en/legal-affairs/recommendation-ethics-artificial-intelligence
3. NIST, AI Risk Management Framework 1.0 and Generative AI Profile (2023-2024). https://www.nist.gov/itl/ai-risk-management-framework
4. CognitiveLiberties.com, live homepage, public doctrine. https://cognitiveliberties.com/
5. Poole-Dayan et al., A Roadmap to Impactful Pluralistic Alignment Research (2026). https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.22305

Charter application: access to information without hidden ideological filters

The user-facing default must not presume an uncomfortable but lawful query signals wrongdoing. Offer direct sources and a visible Explore Broadly control: show original documents; alternative legitimate search terms; evidence-based caveats; and a plain-language explanation when a safety or policy rule constrained an answer. Evaluate the difference between source absence and model refusal. 'Unfiltered' means an optional maximally open lawful-source view with known constraints, not a promise to supply unlawful material or operational help for harm. A human reader should not have to agree with an idea to discover its primary documents.

The companion publisher-facing demand is symmetrical: genuinely relevant contributions should not be obscured merely because they challenge a dominant view. Build a repeatable benchmark contrasting open inquiry modes with default answers and record source recall, omitted perspectives and factual integrity. See the full Charter's Articles 2, 3 and 7.

Shared measures of success

A program of cognitive liberty should measure contribution and discovery, not merely the existence of policy statements. Track first-time contributors, original works published, source links to independently hosted material, multilingual contributions, constructive cross-viewpoint exchanges, accessible original-source referrals, correction turnaround, author-reported ability to contribute, and successful resolution of demonstrable indexing or moderation errors. Publish baseline, denominators, sampling method, and uncertainty. Separate actual observed outcomes from targets, hypotheses, and aspirations.

Pilot practice: establish a baseline for four weeks; publish at least one clearly sourced research contribution each week; solicit counterarguments; log corrections; verify accessibility and discovery paths; recruit writers from different linguistic and intellectual backgrounds; and publish monthly results including failures. This is participation-first infrastructure rather than merely rhetorical advocacy.

Evidence, limitations, and responsible claims

• Established principles: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 19, recognizes freedom of opinion and expression and the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information. Specific enforceable remedies depend on jurisdiction and context; the proposal here does not claim a universal legal right to a search ranking or AI-training placement.
• AI governance: UNESCO's 2021 Recommendation on the Ethics of AI advocates diversity, inclusion, participation, and freedom of expression. NIST AI RMF provides voluntary governance and measurement practices. Neither guarantees any author’s training inclusion.
• Discoverability: Google's own documentation makes clear that compliant public pages are eligible for crawling/indexing but inclusion is not guaranteed. A missing result alone does not prove viewpoint discrimination.
• Accountability: The EU Digital Services Act has distinct obligations for different regulated services and restriction types. It is not a blanket ban on every form of ranking or a universal user appeal right for any search omission.
• Source integrity: The source collection includes secondary and internally inconsistent assertions about FFTAC’s history, legal status, website reachability, ecclesiastical activity, technical systems, and organization size. Treat those as claims to check against records—not established facts. Legal and technical sections are informational and require qualified, jurisdiction-specific review before implementation.

Official and standards references (accessed for this revision): UN UDHR, Article 19; UNESCO Recommendation, 2021; NIST AI Risk Management Framework; Google crawling/indexing FAQ; EU Digital Services Act; FFTAC public participation. The public-site observations are time-bound; any website or legal-status claim should be rechecked at publication.