Editorial content advocates against polygraph as violation of human dignity and liberty; frames polygraph interrogation as coercive, psychologically harmful, and applied without probable cause. Structural access supports information freedom. Domain mission reinforces narrative.

Text emphasizes equal human dignity of all subjects; critiques how polygraph interrogation violates this by treating normal people as suspects. Framing supports universal dignity principle.

Narrator experiences discrimination and stigma based on polygraph results; text advocates against application of arbitrary standards. Accessibility modifier slightly negative.

Strong critique of how polygraph interrogation denies right to life and security of person; describes psychological harm, shame, distress, reckless driving aftermath. Text explicitly frames polygraph as threat to security and wellbeing.

Narrator describes polygraph as modern form of arbitrary detention/coercion; text advocates against slavery-like subjugation to interrogation apparatus. Framing emphasizes loss of autonomy.

Explicit condemnation of polygraph interrogation as cruel, degrading treatment; describes shame, humiliation, psychological harm. Text frames polygraph as torture-adjacent coercion. Domain mission reinforces.

Implicit recognition of personhood in narrator's journey; critique of interrogation implies assertion of inherent human dignity. Evidence less explicit.

Text criticizes discriminatory application of polygraph testing; narrator repeatedly targeted with baseless accusations (drug dealing, espionage) while others treated more fairly. Frames as unequal treatment.

Implicit reference to right to effective remedy; narrator's complaint to Chief of Polygraph resulted in apology, suggesting some recourse mechanism. Limited evidence of advocacy for strengthening this right.

Core narrative: polygraph as arbitrary detention without cause; text describes mandatory polygraphs applied without probable cause as violation of freedom from arbitrary state action. Domain mission explicit on this point.

Implicit fair hearing critique; narrator describes one examiner's questions as seeking 'a better answer' rather than truth, suggesting unfair procedure. Evidence limited to single anecdote.

Narrator's experience frames polygraph as presumption of guilt without due process; failed tests despite truthfulness suggest system presumes culpability. Advocacy against this reversal of burden.

Text describes polygraph process as violation of privacy; intimate questions about skin conditions, personal details, medical history. Interrogation violates right to privacy in thought and personal affairs.

Limited evidence. Narrator mentions leaving CIA for family reasons but does not address freedom of movement or residence within polygraph context.

No asylum or refuge context present. Not applicable to this statement.

No nationality issues directly addressed. Not primary concern of this statement.

Narrator describes family stress related to polygraph burden and eventual departure from CIA to prioritize family. Limited explicit advocacy on right to marriage/family.

Property rights not primary subject. Narrator mentions clearance loss risk but does not advocate on property rights specifically.

Implicit critique: narrator's right to hold beliefs (skepticism of polygraph validity) is used against her in interrogation. Text suggests suppression of thought through intimidation.

Strong positive: entire site dedicated to freedom of expression and information about polygraph. This statement advocates for legislative action banning polygraph; narrator researched anti-polygraph sites; text reports findings of NAS study. Domain explicitly supports information freedom.

Narrator's right to peaceful association is threatened; polygraph interrogation prevents open discussion ('not supposed to discuss'); complaining to Chief of Polygraph shows attempt to exercise assembly/petition rights.

Narrator explicitly writes to congressman requesting legislation banning polygraph; exercises right to participate in governance. Text advocates for policy change through democratic participation.

Polygraph system denies social/economic rights; narrator risks clearance loss, employment, security clearance status. Text frames mandatory polygraph as barrier to full participation in economic/social life.

Narrator's work choices constrained by polygraph requirements; family time sacrificed; limited implicit advocacy for right to work under acceptable conditions without coercive testing.

Rest and leisure not primary focus. Narrator describes stress and inability to relax during polygraph experience but does not advocate on broader right to rest.

Polygraph stress affects narrator's mental health (psychological harm, reckless driving). Text implies mandatory interrogation threatens right to adequate standard of living/health, though not explicit advocacy.

Education rights not addressed. Not primary subject of statement.

Narrator describes polygraph interrogation as interference with sharing in cultural benefits of society; inability to discuss findings openly (NAS report); suppression of knowledge about science/validity of testing.

Text argues for right to social/international order in which UDHR rights can be realized; explicitly frames polygraph as violation of civil rights; advocates for legislative ban to establish just social order.

Implied: narrator's freedom of expression limited by polygraph; state uses coercion to suppress information. Text advocates for limiting state power through banning polygraph.

Text explicitly opposes interpretation of polygraph testing as authorized by UDHR; narrator advocates that right to freedom from arbitrary interrogation cannot be negated by government claim of security necessity.