> I'm confused by your perspective here. Yes, they're both by default unregulated, and that's the point. Speech and perception are both unregulated actions by

> I'm confused by your perspective here. Yes, they're both by default unregulated, and that's the point. Speech and perception are both unregulated actions by default. But we're not talking about trying to preserve the freedom of perception, but rather we're trying to regulate perception to prevent unwanted perception. "Congress shall make no law" works for speech, because the goal is to preserve the basic legality of speech and prevent speech from being regulated. Whereas for perception, the default state is full of unwelcome perception (just as the default state of speech is full of unwelcome speech!). So it's not necessary for congress to make a law for there to be unwelcome perception, rather it's necessary for congress to pass laws to prevent unwelcome perception. Ultimately I'd say that negation is very important, especially due to the negative framing of rights, as it creates a double negative with its associated uncertainty. Does this clear up what I'm saying? Separately, I don't love "unwelcome" but I also don't see a straightforward replacement. I think "perception" is itself an interesting way to frame things, although I'd be extremely worried about things like surveillance companies claiming that their databases of dossiers aren't themselves perception, and it's only things like reports that are.