Balancing First Amendment Rights

The $cilons claim protection under Freedom of Religion and the Anonymous claim protection under Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Assembly and Association. Where is the line between these rights? We need to know because that is what the fight is about.

First off, we argue that Co$ is not a religion anyway and should not be allowed to claim any protection or privileges as such. They blackmailed or otherwise duped the IRS into giving them tax-exemption as a religion, but nothing in their history or present actions fits any religion we know.

If they are not a religion -- and we need this to be decided by the government -- then we are back to Freedom of Speech. They have theirs and we have ours, so it that means we shout at each other outside their building and compete for best YouTube video offering. I think we can live with that.

If they keep their status, and that will be the case for the foreseeable future, then does their right to believe trump our right to say it is crap? Again, their lawyers will battle us in any courtroom and even if it is a losing fight for them, they have the money and the passion to pursue it in the hopes that the expended effort will drive us back.

LRH said in A Manual on the Dissemination of Material (1955)

The purpose of the suit is to harass and discourage rather than to win. The law can be used very easily to harass, and enough harassment on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway, well knowing that he is not authorized, will generally be sufficient to cause his professional decease. If possible, of course, ruin him utterly.