REFERENCES
- Birks, D., and T. Douglas. 2018. Treatment for crime: Philosophical essays on neurointerventions in criminal justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Blitz, M. J. 2008. The freedom of 3D thought: The first amendment in virtual reality. Cardozo Law Review 30:1141–243.
- Blitz, M. J. 2018. The first amendment, video games, and virtual reality training. In Research handbook on the law of virtual and augmented reality, ed. W. Barfield and M. J. Blitz. 242–274. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
- Boire, R. G. 2000. On cognitive liberty. Journal of Cognitive Liberties 1 (2):1–6.
- Bublitz, J. C. 2018. “The soul is the prison of the body” – Mandatory moral enhancement, punishment & rights against neuro-rehabilitation. In Treatment for crime: Philosophical essays on neurointerventions in criminal justice, ed. D. Birks and T. Douglas. 289–320. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Bublitz, J. C., and R. Merkel. 2014. Crimes against minds: On mental manipulations, harms and a human right to mental self-determination. Criminal Law and Philosophy 8 (1):51–77. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11572-012-9172-y.
- Feinberg, J. 1986. The moral limits of the criminal law: Harm to self 3. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
- Klein Tuente, S., S. Bogaerts, S. van IJzendoorn, and W. Veling. 2018. Effect of virtual reality aggression prevention training for forensic psychiatric patients (VRAPT): Study protocol of a multi-center RCT. BMC Psychiatry 18 (1):251. doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-018-1830-8.
- Lemley, M. A., and E. Volokh. 2018. Law, virtual reality, and augmented reality. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 166:1051–138.
- Ligthart, S., G. Meynen, and T. Douglas. 2021. Persuasive technologies and the right to mental liberty: The “smart rehabilitation” of criminal offenders. In The Cambridge handbook of information technology, life sciences and human rights. ed. M. Ienca, O. Pollicino, L. Liguori, E. Stefanini, and R. Andorno. 32–47. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Ligthart, S., G. Meynen, N. Biller-Andorno, T. Kooijmans, and P. Kellmeyer. 2022. Is virtually everything possible? The relevance of ethics and human rights for introducing extended reality in forensic psychiatry. AJOB Neuroscience 13(3): 144–157. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/21507740.2021.1898489.
- McCarthy-Jones, S. 2019. The autonomous mind: The right to freedom of thought in the twenty-first century. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence 2:19. doi:https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2019.00019.
- Sable Communications of California, Inc. v. F.C.C. 1989. U.S. Reports 492:115–135.
- Seinfeld, S., J. Arroyo-Palacios, G. Iruretagoyena, R. Hortensius, L. E. Zapata, D. Borland, B. de Gelder, M. Slater, and M. V. Sanchez-Vives. 2018. Offenders become the victim in virtual reality: Impact of changing perspective in domestic violence. Scientific Reports 8 (1):2692. doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-19987-7.
- Sententia, W. 2004. Neuroethical considerations: Cognitive liberty and converging technologies for improving human cognition. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1013 (1):221–8. doi:https://doi.org/10.1196/annals.1305.014.