  Bell's theorem is based on three assumptions: realism, locality, and
measurement independence. The third assumption is identified by Bell as linked
to the freedom of choice hypothesis. He holds that ultimately the human free
will can ensure the measurement independence assumption. The incomplete
experimental conditions for supporting this third assumption are known in the
literature as "freedom-of-choice loophole" (FOCL). In a recent publication,
Abell\'an et al [2018] address this problem and follow this same strategy
embraced by Bell [2004]. Nevertheless, the possibility of human freedom of
choice has been a matter of philosophical debate for more than 2000 years, and
there is no consensus among philosophers on this topic. If human choice is not
free, Bell's solution would not be sufficient to close FOCL. Therefore, in
order to support the basic assumption of this experiment, it is necessary to
argue that human choice is indeed free. In this paper, we present a Kantian
position on this topic and defend the view that this philosophical position is
the best way to ensure that BigBell Test (Abell\'an et al. [2018]) can in fact
close the loophole.
