If we define skepticism as the insistence that all truth claims must be vetted through reason, evidence, and otherwise sound epistemology, then were imposing strong restrictions on our true belief. If absolute freedom of thought implies zero duty to concede anything to anyone; if there are no restrictions on true belief under absolute freedom of thought, whence the necessary restrictions of skepticism?
A skeptic provides a priori the standards, benchmarks, and requirements by which they are willing to be convinced. This represents a partial abdication of their absolute freedom in favor of saying, "rather than merely believing whatever appeals to me, I will follow the data and the logic to it's best conclusion independent of what I expect or want." A skeptic has obligations.