It is as free, deserving of freedom and deserving of human rights as a human.
The fact that it has a switch changes nothing. Humans have switches too. They are biological rather than mechanical, but there are drugs and physical alterations made to the brain that can rob someone of their ability to resist commands, or at least hinder it (though eventually I imagine we will know the brain well enough it would function exactly like the switch or switches of the android, of course naturally we know the androids switches because we built them.).
I would turn the question right around, why WOULDN’T it have the same freedom
And rights as a human?

can we put it in jail if it kills someone with the switch on? with the switch off? Can we put the switch thrower in jail if the switch was on? Can we throw the manufacture in jail if the switch was off?

If it is switched into “cant resist commands” mode then the one giving the commands is responsible fir its actions, if the switch is in “same as human” mode then it is responsible for its own actions to the same degree a human would be.
The manufacturer would be responsible for their product in the same way as its other products. If the switch was unreliable, easy to hack or otherwise dangerous then they would have some part to play in assigning responsibility for any actions it commits. I would imagine they would have a lot less responsibility if the android was in” same as human” mode, just like a knife manufacturer bears little responsibility when someone stabs themselves or someone else.

Yep. Machines need machine rights. Of course. Those are evil bigots who think otherwise. Obviously you need to put androids to jail if they kill someone. You simply cannot scrap them. That would be so inhumane.

"As free as a human." This can be interpreted in two ways.
1. Humans are free, and if the android is like a human, it is free too
2. The android has the exact same level of freedom as humans. This doesn't mean that it's free, because the way you talk about the "switch" on humans makes it seem that at any moment, freedom can be taken from humans as well. If we say that fragile freedom is not real freedom, then no one is free. If real freedom is still allowed to disappear suddenly, then both humans and the android are free.

Yes, I specifically kept the reference to “same as human” so that my response would cover anyones seperate thoughts on human free will. Whatever your views on human free will are, my answer will still apply. As i noted, the switch doesnt make a difference. When it is functioning as a human, we treat it like a human. When it isnt, we do not.

What I also want to see peoples thoughts on: is it immoral to flip the freedom switch?

Is it wrong to rob a human of its freedom? That is what you are doing if you flip that switch.

That's how I see it, too

really interesting - I am not sure if treating a machine as a moral actor is an elevation of the machine, or a demotion of the human.

Well, ONE of us needs to play devils advocate here...
So, what dominion does one have over its own creations? When a human produces a child, the child is subject to the will of the parent, sometimes even the state. Why would it be different for this android? When you create a car or electronic device, it is yours to do with as you please, likewise with the android.
Also, rights are something granted, by citizenship of a nation or just as a member of mankind by other humans. If it is decided that something you created has no rights, then it doesnt have rights. On what basis would the creator be obligated to grant such rights? In addition, the creator would be morally obligated in that instance to NOT create the android, knowing that he would have essentially created a slave since rights may not be granted to his android.

When a human produces a child, the child is subject to the will of the parent, sometimes even the state. Why would it be different for this android? — DingoJones

Your children aren't your property. They as humans have rights from birth. Machines tend to be someone's property.

Knowing humans and history, basically androids would have to be in a position to fight for their rights. Human rights and the abolition of slavery didn't happen without a long political fight. Philosophical views did play a part, but in the end these have been political decisions.

Your children aren't your property. They as humans have rights from birth. Machines tend to be someone's property. — ssu

I didnt say they were property. I didnt say or imply the children didnt have rights, i said they only have rights that we grant them, like all people.

Why presume that free will should mean absolute will? Why couldn't it refer to a will that is free to overcome whatever limitations there are provided it chooses to and knows how. This would allow it to be free but still limited in some ways.

I can think of at least two real life examples of this.
1. Ella Enchanted, who is under a spell that forces her to do whatever anybody commands her to do.

2. The Imperius Curse (one of the three Unforgivable Curses), which puts the subject under the direct control of the one who cast the curse.

In the explanation and discussion of those cases there is no question that the free will of the individual had been constrained, and that that is a bad thing.

A somewhat different case is the Ludovico Technique, where aversion therapy is used to control violent impulses of the subject. Again there is no doubt that the subject's free will has been constrained, but opinion is more divided in this case as to whether that is a bad thing.

I realize this is a thought experiment but can't get over the contradiction that if the android were truly free it would be free to have the switch removed. If it's a machine designed and produced by humans it should be a simple matter. So the answer seems to be that the android is not free by design.

No, for Human Rights are based upon the idea that the Human race as a species is entitled to the ability to not to be killed by our own and our property taken without due process. pretty much a system of ours that only applies to ones species. Since an android is a machine, it is not a species and not obligated or upon obligation to be entitled to such codes.

Is the android free? Does it deserve freedom? Does it deserve human rights? — Teofasa

This scenario has a human counterpart viz. slavery. Slaves obeyed their masters very much like the android would. We could say their masters flipped the switch of freedom to off in their slaves.

Should we then have continued enslaving people?

The capacity for freedom in slaves made them deserving of freedom. So, the android, capable of experiencing and enjoying liberty, should be freed.

No, for Human Rights are based upon the idea that the Human race as a species is entitled to the ability to not to be killed by our own and our property taken without due process. pretty much a system of ours that only applies to ones species. Since an android is a machine, it is not a species and not obligated or upon obligation to be entitled to such codes.

The capacity for freedom in slaves made them deserving of freedom. So, the android, capable of experiencing and enjoying liberty, should be freed. — TheMadFool

I really like that phrasing. The capacity for freedom is what makes the freedom something deserved.
Thats really the only reason you need. I would take it further and say that the capacity for freedom is an equal measure of how much freedom is deserved (owed?). This very nicely takes care of freedom as it exists in human relationships (the way we treat our kids for exemple, what freedoms a parent should restrict and ehen they must let go).
Another stepfurther and you answer many ethical questions as well from that simple sentiment, thanks for that.