> In this line of thought your thoughts about banning thinking should be banned.

No, because acknowledging the existence of such a thought does not imply thinking it.

The flaw with your claims is the underlying belief that human thought tends -- if left untouched by others -- tends towards freedom.

There is little reason to believe this. Throughout history, many civilizations have independently arisen that have fully embraced the thought that stops all other thought. You see this is in various cultural degradations, human atrocities, etc that have occurred over and over again.

In reality, human thought is not totally 'free'. There are some thoughts that you can think that make you less free, and should be discouraged.

Here's a more poignant example, would you allow adults to drive a metal spike into their brain to allow 'freedom'? Why or why not? If you do allow them, how can you possibly claim to desire 'freedom' for others, since -- by definition -- doing such a thing to your body is going to put you at the mercy of others for many years to come (and if they can't help you, then to the mercy of nature). If you don't allow them, why? If encouraging every liberty is not the goal of this exercise of freedom, then exactly what are you arguing about?