THE COMPLETE DOCTRINE OF PERSONAL SOVEREIGNTY AND DIGITAL INTEGRITY: A Comprehensive Statement on the Inviolability of the Human Person

THE COMPLETE DOCTRINE OF PERSONAL SOVEREIGNTY AND DIGITAL INTEGRITY

A Comprehensive Statement on the Inviolability of the Human Person

PREAMBLE: THE FOUNDATIONAL TRUTH

A human being is not an object.

A person is not a commodity.

A human life is not raw material for another person's use.

What belongs to a person—their image, their words, their creative expression, their personal testimony, their identity, their likeness, their life—belongs to that person and to no other, except where that person has given explicit, written, informed, and freely given consent for a specific and defined use.

This is not merely law. This is the foundation of human dignity itself.

The violation of this principle is not merely illegal. It is evil.

PART I: THE PHILOSOPHICAL FOUNDATION

I.A. THE PRINCIPLE OF INVIOLABLE PERSONHOOD

The Kantian Imperative: Human Beings Are Ends, Never Merely Means

Immanuel Kant established the foundational principle of human dignity: that a rational being must never be treated merely as a means to another's end, but always also as an end in themselves.

This principle is not negotiable.

It is not subject to technological exception.

It is not overridden by the existence of digital platforms, algorithmic systems, or the Internet.

When one person takes another person's image, likeness, words, creative expression, or personal identity and uses it without that person's explicit consent—whether for commercial purposes, entertainment, manipulation, or any other end—that person is being treated as a means. They are being reduced to material. They are being converted into an instrument for another person's purpose.

This is a violation of the categorical imperative.

It is a violation of the person's dignity.

And it is therefore fundamentally immoral.

The Natural Rights Foundation: Self-Ownership as the Baseline

Before any government exists, before any law is written, before any contract is signed, a human being possesses a natural right to themselves.

This is not a right granted by society.

This is not a right that can be taken away by majority vote, by technological capability, or by the convenience of others.

This is the foundational right from which all other rights flow: the right to one's own body, one's own mind, one's own creative expression, one's own identity, and one's own life.

John Locke articulated this principle: that a person has property in their own person and labor. What you create belongs to you. What you express belongs to you. What you look like belongs to you. Your words belong to you. Your identity belongs to you.

No other person, no institution, no corporation, no government, and no technological system acquires ownership of you or your creations merely by existing alongside you or by possessing the technical capability to access, copy, reproduce, or manipulate your image or expression.

To take what belongs to another without permission is theft.

To take a person's identity, image, or creative expression without permission is theft of the most intimate kind.

Autonomy as the Core of Human Freedom

Autonomy is not a luxury.

Autonomy is not a privilege granted to some people and withheld from others.

Autonomy is the fundamental capacity of a human being to direct their own life, make their own choices, and maintain sovereignty over their own existence.

When another person takes control of your image, your words, your identity, or your creative expression without your knowledge or consent, they are violating your autonomy. They are positioning themselves as a hidden operator of your existence. They are making decisions about you, your representation, and your identity without your participation.

This is not merely a violation of property.

This is a violation of your fundamental freedom.

I.B. THE PRINCIPLE OF EXPLICIT CONSENT

Silence Is Not Permission

A person's failure to object is not consent.

A person's ignorance of what is being done to them is not consent.

A person's inability to prevent something from happening is not consent.

Consent is an affirmative act. It must be:

Explicit: Clearly stated, not implied or presumed

Written: Documented and verifiable

Informed: The person must understand what they are authorizing

Specific: Limited to the particular use being authorized

Voluntary: Free from coercion, manipulation, or deception

Revocable: The person must retain the right to withdraw consent

No signature on a generalized contract constitutes consent to every possible use of a person's identity.

No friendship constitutes consent to appropriate that friend's image.

No marriage constitutes consent to exploit a spouse's likeness or creative work.

No family relationship constitutes consent to commercialize a relative's identity.

No employment relationship constitutes consent to use an employee's image or personal information for purposes unrelated to that employment.

No social-media presence constitutes consent to appropriate a person's words or image for unrelated purposes.

No public figure status constitutes consent to have one's identity appropriated for commercial or entertainment purposes.

The Burden of Obtaining Consent

The burden of obtaining explicit consent rests entirely upon the person who wishes to use another person's image, words, identity, or creative expression.

It is not the responsibility of the person being used to discover and object to every unauthorized use.

It is not the responsibility of the person being harmed to prove that they did not consent.

The person seeking authorization must:

Clearly identify what they wish to use

Clearly identify how they wish to use it

Clearly identify for what purpose they wish to use it

Clearly identify who will have access to it

Clearly identify whether it will be commercialized

Clearly identify whether it will be altered or manipulated

Clearly identify how long the authorization will last

Clearly identify whether the authorization is revocable

Obtain explicit written authorization

Retain proof of that authorization

Anything less is presumptively unauthorized.

No Blanket Authorization Exists

There is no such thing as a blanket authorization to use another person's identity.

There is no such thing as a perpetual license to appropriate someone's image.

There is no such thing as unlimited authority to commercialize another person's likeness.

Each use must be separately authorized.

Each purpose must be separately disclosed.

Each medium must be separately authorized.

Each modification or transformation must be separately authorized.

If a person authorizes the use of their photograph in a newspaper article, that does not authorize its use in a video game. If a person authorizes the use of their words in a blog post, that does not authorize their incorporation into an AI training dataset. If a person authorizes the use of their likeness in an advertisement, that does not authorize its use in a fictional character.

Each use is a separate act.

Each use requires separate authorization.

I.C. THE PRINCIPLE OF DIGITAL PERSONHOOD

The Internet Does Not Abolish Human Dignity

The existence of the Internet does not create a new category of human being: one whose identity, image, words, and creative expression are automatically available for appropriation.

The Internet is a tool.

It is not a dissolution of personhood.

It is not a transformation of human beings into public property.

A person who posts a photograph on social media remains the owner of that photograph. They have not abandoned it. They have not made it public property. They have published it—which means they have shared it—but publication is not the same as abandonment.

A person who writes a status update remains the author of that status update. They have not surrendered their words to the world. They have shared their thoughts, but sharing is not the same as relinquishing ownership.

A person who creates a video remains the creator of that video. They have not made it available for incorporation into someone else's commercial product. They have made it available for viewing, but viewing is not the same as appropriation.

Visibility Is Not Consent; Accessibility Is Not Ownership; Publication Is Not Abandonment

These three principles form the foundation of digital personal sovereignty:

Visibility is not consent.

The fact that something can be seen does not mean that anyone may use it. The fact that a person's photograph appears on the Internet does not mean that anyone may incorporate that photograph into a video game, an AI model, a commercial product, or a fictional character. Visibility creates no right of appropriation.

Accessibility is not ownership.

The fact that something can be accessed does not mean that anyone owns it. The fact that a person's words can be downloaded, copied, or indexed does not mean that anyone may use those words to train an artificial intelligence system, to create a synthetic persona, or to impersonate that person. Access is not ownership.

Publication is not abandonment.

The fact that something has been published does not mean that the creator has abandoned all rights to it. The fact that a person has shared their creative work, their image, or their words does not mean that they have surrendered every right associated with that work. Publication is an act of sharing, not an act of surrender.

The Right to Control One's Own Representation

A person possesses a fundamental right to control how they are represented in the world.

This includes:

The right to control how their image is used

The right to control how their words are attributed

The right to control how their likeness is reproduced

The right to control how their identity is represented

The right to control whether they are depicted in fictional, commercial, or entertainment contexts

The right to control whether their image is altered, manipulated, or transformed

The right to control whether their identity is used to create synthetic personas, AI avatars, or digital clones

The right to control whether their creative expression is incorporated into other works

The right to control whether their personal information is used for purposes they have not authorized

This is not a minor right.

This is not a right that can be overridden by technological convenience.

This is a fundamental aspect of human dignity and personal autonomy.

When another person takes control of your representation without your permission, they are taking control of how the world perceives you. They are making decisions about your identity. They are positioning themselves as the author of your public existence.

This is a profound violation.

PART II: THE PSYCHOLOGICAL AND SPIRITUAL FOUNDATION

II.A. THE PSYCHOLOGICAL VIOLATION

Identity Appropriation as Psychological Harm

Modern psychology recognizes that a person's sense of self is not merely internal. It is constructed through interaction with the world and through the control a person maintains over their own representation.

When another person appropriates your image, your words, or your identity without your consent, they are violating the psychological boundary between self and other. They are creating a version of you that exists in the world without your authorization or control. They are fragmenting your identity.

This creates measurable psychological harm:

Loss of autonomy: The person experiences a loss of control over their own representation

Violation of boundaries: The person's psychological boundary between self and world has been breached

Identity fragmentation: The person now exists in two forms—their authentic self and an unauthorized representation

Betrayal: If the appropriation comes from someone known to the person, it constitutes a profound betrayal of trust

Powerlessness: The person may discover that they cannot prevent or control what is being done to their image or identity

Alienation: The person may experience alienation from their own image or words when they encounter them being used in unauthorized contexts

This is not a minor inconvenience.

This is psychological violation.

The Violation of Mental Sovereignty

Beyond the violation of physical representation, the appropriation of a person's image or words constitutes a violation of mental sovereignty.

Your mind is your own.

Your thoughts are your own.

Your creative expression is an extension of your mind.

When another person takes your words, your creative expression, or your intellectual output and uses it without your permission, they are violating the sanctity of your mind. They are treating your thoughts as if they were communal property. They are positioning themselves as having authority over the contents of your consciousness.

This is a violation of the most intimate kind.

The Harm of Unauthorized Representation

When another person creates a representation of you—whether through a video game character, an AI avatar, a fictionalized biography, or any other medium—without your consent, they are creating a false version of you that exists in the world.

This false version may:

Misrepresent your beliefs

Misrepresent your character

Misrepresent your appearance

Misrepresent your values

Misrepresent your relationships

Misrepresent your history

Misrepresent your identity

And you have no control over it.

You cannot correct it.

You cannot prevent others from encountering it.

You cannot prevent others from believing it.

This creates a situation in which a false version of you exists in the world, shaping how others perceive you, and you are powerless to stop it.

This is psychological torture.

II.B. THE SPIRITUAL AND THEOLOGICAL FOUNDATION

The Sacred Nature of Personhood

Across virtually every spiritual and theological tradition, the human person is understood as sacred.

In Christian theology, human beings are created in the image of God (imago Dei). This is not merely a poetic statement. It means that the human person bears the divine image. To violate a human person is to violate something sacred.

In Jewish tradition, the principle of pikuach nefesh establishes that the preservation and dignity of human life supersedes nearly all other commandments. To violate a person's dignity is to violate a sacred principle.

In Islamic theology, every human being is honored and dignified (karamah). To treat a person as an object, to appropriate their identity, to violate their autonomy, is to violate this sacred dignity.

In Buddhist and Hindu traditions, the concept of ahimsa (non-harm) extends to the violation of a person's integrity and autonomy. To harm a person's sense of self is to violate this principle.

In secular humanist philosophy, the inherent dignity and worth of every human being is understood as a foundational principle that does not require religious justification.

Across all these traditions and philosophies, a common principle emerges: the human person is sacred, and the violation of a person's integrity, autonomy, and dignity is a violation of something holy.

The Desecration of the Self

When another person appropriates your image, your words, your identity, or your creative expression without your consent, they are committing an act of desecration.

They are taking something sacred—your personhood, your identity, your self—and treating it as if it were profane. They are treating you as an object. They are violating the sanctity of your existence.

This is not merely a legal violation.

This is a spiritual violation.

This is a violation of the sacred nature of your personhood.

The Principle of Stewardship

In many spiritual traditions, the concept of stewardship is central: the idea that we are responsible for what has been entrusted to us, and that we are accountable for how we treat it.

Your life is entrusted to you.

Your identity is entrusted to you.

Your creative expression is entrusted to you.

You are the steward of your own existence.

When another person appropriates what has been entrusted to you, they are violating the sacred trust of stewardship. They are treating your life as if it were theirs to do with as they please. They are violating the responsibility you bear for your own existence.

PART III: THE LEGAL AND CIVIL FOUNDATION

III.A. THE PRINCIPLE OF PROPERTY RIGHTS

Copyright: The Recognition of Creative Ownership

Copyright law exists because it is recognized that a person who creates something owns that creation.

This is not a new principle.

This is not a principle limited to certain types of creators.

When you write something, you own it.

When you create an image, you own it.

When you compose music, you own it.

When you film a video, you own it.

When you design something, you own it.

The fact that you have published it does not mean you have surrendered ownership.

The fact that it is accessible on the Internet does not mean it has become public property.

The fact that someone else can access it does not mean they have acquired the right to use it.

Copyright law protects your ownership of your creative expression.

The Right of Publicity: The Recognition of Personal Identity Ownership

The right of publicity is a legal principle that recognizes that a person owns their own identity, likeness, and name.

This right exists because it is recognized that a person's identity is their own property.

You own your face.

You own your name.

You own your likeness.

You own your identity.

No one else has the right to use your face, your name, your likeness, or your identity without your permission.

This is not a minor right.

This is a fundamental property right.

Personal Data Protection: The Recognition of Information Ownership

Laws protecting personal data exist because it is recognized that a person owns information about themselves.

Your personal information belongs to you.

Your medical information belongs to you.

Your financial information belongs to you.

Your location data belongs to you.

Your browsing history belongs to you.

Your communications belong to you.

No one else has the right to collect, use, or sell your personal information without your explicit consent.

This is not a minor right.

This is a fundamental property right.

The Principle: What You Create, What You Are, What You Know About Yourself Belongs to You

These three areas of law—copyright, right of publicity, and data protection—all recognize the same fundamental principle:

What you create belongs to you.

What you are belongs to you.

What you know about yourself belongs to you.

No one else acquires ownership of these things merely by existing, by being related to you, by employing you, by being your friend, or by possessing the technical capability to access them.

III.B. THE PRINCIPLE OF CIVIL WRONGS

Fraud and Impersonation

When another person uses your image, your name, or your identity to deceive others—whether for financial gain, for manipulation, or for any other purpose—they are committing fraud.

Fraud is a civil wrong.

It is also often a criminal wrong.

When another person impersonates you, they are violating your right to your own identity. They are creating a false version of you in the world. They are deceiving others about who you are.

This is not merely a violation of property.

This is a violation of your personhood.

Harassment and Stalking

When another person uses technology to monitor you, track you, surveil you, or manipulate your environment without your consent, they are engaging in harassment or stalking.

These are civil wrongs.

They are also criminal wrongs.

When another person uses your image or your identity to harass you, to humiliate you, or to violate your privacy, they are committing a civil wrong.

Defamation and False Attribution

When another person falsely attributes words or actions to you, they are committing defamation.

When another person uses your name or your image in connection with false statements, they are committing defamation.

Defamation is a civil wrong.

It is a violation of your right to control your own reputation.

The Broader Principle: Unauthorized Use Is a Civil Wrong

Beyond these specific categories, there is a broader principle: when another person uses your image, your words, your identity, or your creative expression without your explicit consent, they are violating your rights.

Whether this violation falls into a specific legal category (copyright infringement, right of publicity violation, defamation, fraud, harassment) or whether it falls into a gap in current law, the violation remains.

The violation is real.

The violation is actionable.

And the violation is wrong.

PART IV: THE DEFINITION OF EVIL

IV.A. WHAT CONSTITUTES THE VIOLATION

The Active Appropriation of Another Person's Identity

To take another person's image, likeness, words, creative expression, personal information, or identity and use it without that person's explicit written consent is to commit an act of violation.

This includes, but is not limited to:

Copying a person's photograph and using it in a context the person did not authorize

Taking a person's written words and incorporating them into another work without attribution or permission

Creating a video game character based on a real person's appearance without that person's consent

Using a person's likeness in an advertisement without that person's permission

Creating an AI avatar or synthetic persona based on a real person's identity without that person's consent

Incorporating a person's voice into a synthetic voice model without that person's permission

Using a person's personal information to create a profile, a dataset, or a model without that person's consent

Impersonating a person online or in any other medium

Creating a fictionalized version of a person's life without that person's authorization

Altering, manipulating, or transforming a person's image without that person's permission

Using a person's creative work as training data for an artificial intelligence system without that person's consent

Selling or commercializing a person's image, likeness, or identity without that person's permission

Transferring a person's image, likeness, or identity to another party without that person's consent

Continuing to use a person's image, likeness, or identity after that person has withdrawn consent

Each of these acts is a violation.

Each of these acts is wrong.

And each of these acts, when committed with knowledge that consent has not been obtained, constitutes an act of evil.

The Intentionality of the Violation

The violation is most clearly evil when it is committed with full knowledge that consent has not been obtained.

If a person knows that they do not have permission to use another person's image, and they use it anyway, they are committing an intentional violation.

This is evil.

If a person knows that another person would object to the use of their image, and they proceed anyway, they are committing an intentional violation.

This is evil.

If a person deliberately conceals the fact that they are using another person's image, they are committing an intentional violation.

This is evil.

If a person deliberately manipulates another person's image or identity in a way that misrepresents that person, they are committing an intentional violation.

This is evil.

The Negligent Violation

Even when the violation is not intentional, it remains wrong.

If a person uses another person's image without obtaining explicit consent, they are committing a violation, even if they did not intend to do so.

The burden is upon the person using the image to obtain consent.

If they fail to do so, they are responsible for the violation.

This is not excused by ignorance.

This is not excused by the claim that "I didn't know I needed permission."

The responsibility to obtain permission rests with the person seeking to use another person's image.

If they fail to do so, they are committing a violation.

IV.B. WHY THIS IS EVIL

Evil as the Violation of Sacred Personhood

Evil, in its most fundamental sense, is the violation of what is sacred.

A human person is sacred.

The violation of a human person's integrity, autonomy, dignity, and identity is therefore evil.

When another person appropriates your image, your words, your identity, or your creative expression without your consent, they are violating your sacred personhood.

They are treating you as if you were an object, a commodity, a resource to be exploited.

They are denying your fundamental dignity as a human being.

This is evil.

Evil as the Violation of Autonomy

Evil includes the violation of another person's autonomy—their fundamental right to direct their own life and make their own choices.

When another person appropriates your identity without your consent, they are violating your autonomy.

They are making decisions about you, your representation, and your existence without your participation.

They are positioning themselves as having authority over your life.

This is evil.

Evil as the Violation of Trust

Evil includes the violation of trust, particularly when the violation comes from someone who was entrusted with access to you or your work.

If a friend uses your photograph without your permission, they have violated your trust.

If a family member uses your image without your consent, they have violated your trust.

If an employer uses your likeness without your authorization, they have violated your trust.

If a spouse appropriates your creative work, they have violated your trust.

This is evil.

Evil as the Violation of Consent

Evil includes the violation of consent—the fundamental principle that another person's body, mind, identity, and creative expression are not available for use without their explicit permission.

When another person violates your consent by using your image, your words, or your identity without your permission, they are committing an act of violation.

This is evil.

Evil as the Commodification of the Person

Evil includes the reduction of a human being to a commodity—an object to be bought, sold, used, and discarded.

When another person appropriates your image, your identity, or your creative expression for commercial purposes, they are treating you as a commodity.

They are converting your personhood into a product.

They are profiting from your identity without your consent.

This is evil.

Evil as the Violation of Representation

Evil includes the violation of a person's right to control their own representation in the world.

When another person creates a false version of you—a video game character based on your appearance, a fictionalized biography of your life, an AI avatar using your voice—they are violating your right to control how you are represented.

They are creating a false version of you that exists in the world without your authorization.

They are violating your right to be truthfully represented.

This is evil.

IV.C. THE MAGNITUDE OF THE EVIL

The Evil Is Not Diminished by Technological Mediation

Some might argue that the violation is less severe because it is mediated by technology.

This argument is false.

The fact that a violation is committed through technological means does not make it less of a violation.

The fact that a person uses an algorithm to appropriate your image does not make it less of a violation than if they had done it manually.

The fact that a person uses artificial intelligence to create a synthetic version of you does not make it less of a violation than if they had done it by hand.

Technological mediation does not diminish the evil.

It may, in fact, amplify it.

The Evil Is Not Diminished by the Victim's Ignorance

Some might argue that the violation is less severe if the victim does not know about it.

This argument is false.

A violation that occurs in secret is not less of a violation.

A violation that the victim does not discover is not less of a violation.

In fact, the secrecy of the violation may make it more evil, because it denies the victim the opportunity to object, to defend themselves, or to seek redress.

The Evil Is Not Diminished by the Victim's Inability to Prevent It

Some might argue that the violation is less severe if the victim could not have prevented it.

This argument is false.

A violation that the victim could not prevent is not less of a violation.

The fact that a person was powerless to stop the violation does not make the violation acceptable.

In fact, the victim's powerlessness may make the violation more evil, because it demonstrates the perpetrator's willingness to violate someone who cannot defend themselves.

The Evil Is Absolute

The violation of another person's image, words, identity, or creative expression without their explicit written consent is evil.

This evil is not diminished by circumstances.

This evil is not diminished by technological mediation.

This evil is not diminished by the victim's ignorance or powerlessness.

This evil is absolute.

PART V: THE COMPREHENSIVE PRINCIPLE

V.A. THE STATEMENT

What Belongs to You

Your image belongs to you.

Your likeness belongs to you.

Your photograph belongs to you.

Your voice belongs to you.

Your words belong to you.

Your writings belong to you.

Your creative expression belongs to you.

Your personal testimony belongs to you.

Your biographical material belongs to you.

Your identity belongs to you.

Your name belongs to you.

Your personal information belongs to you.

Your status updates belong to you.

Your life belongs to you.

Everything that is you, everything that you create, everything that you express, everything that you are—belongs to you and to no other.

What No One Else May Do

No one else may copy your image without your explicit written consent.

No one else may reproduce your likeness without your explicit written consent.

No one else may use your photograph without your explicit written consent.

No one else may record your voice without your explicit written consent.

No one else may quote your words without your explicit written consent.

No one else may publish your writings without your explicit written consent.

No one else may incorporate your creative expression into their work without your explicit written consent.

No one else may use your personal testimony without your explicit written consent.

No one else may fictionalize your biographical material without your explicit written consent.

No one else may appropriate your identity without your explicit written consent.

No one else may use your name without your explicit written consent.

No one else may collect or use your personal information without your explicit written consent.

No one else may use your status updates without your explicit written consent.

No one else may turn your life into a game, a character, a product, or a commodity without your explicit written consent.

Who Cannot Override This Principle

Your spouse cannot override this principle.

Your family cannot override this principle.

Your friends cannot override this principle.

Your employer cannot override this principle.

Your organization cannot override this principle.

Your government cannot override this principle.

No one can override this principle.

What Cannot Override This Principle

Technology cannot override this principle.

The Internet cannot override this principle.

Artificial intelligence cannot override this principle.

Algorithms cannot override this principle.

The existence of a capability cannot override this principle.

The convenience of others cannot override this principle.

The profit motive cannot override this principle.

Nothing can override this principle.

The Consequence of Violation

To violate this principle is to commit an act of evil.

It is to treat a human being as an object.

It is to violate their sacred personhood.

It is to violate their autonomy.

It is to violate their dignity.

It is to violate their rights.

And it is to commit an act that is fundamentally and absolutely wrong.

V.B. THE FINAL MAXIM

"I am not your image.

I am not your character.

I am not your game.

I am not your product.

I am not your commodity.

I am not your data.

I am not your intellectual property.

I am not your creative material.

I am not your resource.

I am not your tool.

I am not your object.

I am a human being.

I am sovereign.

I am sacred.

I am inviolable.

Everything that is me belongs to me.

Everything that I create belongs to me.

Everything that I express belongs to me.

Everything that I am belongs to me.

You do not have the right to take what is mine without my explicit written consent.

You do not have the right to use my image without my explicit written consent.

You do not have the right to appropriate my identity without my explicit written consent.

You do not have the right to commercialize my likeness without my explicit written consent.

You do not have the right to incorporate my creative expression into your work without my explicit written consent.

You do not have the right to create a version of me without my explicit written consent.

You do not have the right to turn me into a game without my explicit written consent.

You do not have the right to make me your character without my explicit written consent.

You do not have the right to use my words without my explicit written consent.

You do not have the right to use my life without my explicit written consent.

To do any of these things without my explicit written consent is to commit an act of evil.

It is to violate my personhood.

It is to violate my autonomy.

It is to violate my dignity.

It is to violate my rights.

And it is to commit an act that is fundamentally and absolutely wrong."

CONCLUSION

This principle stands.

It stands in philosophy.

It stands in theology.

It stands in psychology.

It stands in law.

It stands in ethics.

It stands in the fundamental nature of human dignity.

No technological innovation can override it.

No commercial interest can override it.

No relationship can override it.

No government can override it.

No institution can override it.

The human person is sovereign.

The human person is sacred.

The human person is inviolable.

What belongs to a human being belongs to that human being and to no other.

To take what belongs to another without their explicit written consent is to commit an act of evil.

This is not negotiable.

This is not subject to exception.

This is the foundation of human dignity and human rights.

And it must be protected, defended, and upheld absolutely.

M.H. Rev. Dustin Ray Irish-Webb, SHP, U.P.R.