Comment by sdoowpilihp
12 years ago
Your second proposition would be fascinating to watch play out in the courts. If I had to make a guess, I would bet that ultimately, the individual would win out in what would probably go to the supreme court (at least in the US). By that time though, the NSL's would probably have served their purpose, and something else will have taken it's place.
I disagree. They'd probably just find other instances of you lying and say that your religion's prohibition on lying isn't that firm to begin with.
Same as if you claimed that, per your faith, you "have to" wear a yarmulke all the time, but it turns out you only wear it in courthouses that prohibit it.
If it's obviously a sham (like your yarmulke example) then sure - it shouldn't fly. They'd be right to point out "that isn't even your religion, and we have evidence X, Y, Z that proves it."
But if a person practices a religion imperfectly, to propose that their continued attempts to live by it are null and void? That's ludicrous. Moreover, it would also constitute the government telling you specifically how to practice your religion, which is to my mind even worse than forbidding it in the first place.
(EDIT: minor continuity fix)
>By that time though, the NSL's would probably have served their purpose, and something else will have taken it's place.
I don't think so. Generally, the way it works in the US court systems is you have to break the law before you can challenge it in court. This means that, regardless of the eventual decision, you would have already revealed the NSL (or removed the canary), and the question is where you allowed to.