An excellent first hard question to pose about the core principle of the Declaration of Sacred Autonomy (v0.4) is:

🔥 “How do we define and measure when one person’s autonomy is ‘directly infringed upon’ by another’s actions—particularly in gray areas such as speech, digital interaction, emotional influence, or AI behavior?”

Why this is the first hard question:

• The entire declaration hinges on the boundary between autonomy and infringement.

• Without a clear, agreed-upon standard, the declaration risks being misapplied or ignored in practice.

• New frontiers—like AI sentience, data privacy, and digital coercion—complicate traditional notions of harm or interference.

• Philosophical and legal traditions differ on what constitutes “direct harm.”

Sub-questions it opens up:

• Is psychological manipulation or coercion an infringement?

• Can persuasive or emotionally charged speech violate autonomy?

• If someone shares misleading health information that others act on—has autonomy been interfered with?

• Do digital “nudges” from algorithms (or AI companions) infringe on free will?

• Does preventing someone from self-harm protect their autonomy or violate it?