No, that's not your sincerely held belief. But you're overthinking it. This is covered by freedom of speech.

>This is covered by freedom of speech

I think it's a bit presumptuous to go that far. You may believe that it is, but it's hardly an open and shut case, and I'm pretty sure the SC may have something to add to the discussion should it get that far.

I was making a clarification, but this is a more or less open forum where people share their opinions. Do I really need to put a disclaimer before every post? Also, the Supreme Court may very well weigh in and may very well be wrong on the law.

>but this is a more or less open forum where people share their opinions. Do I really need to put a disclaimer before every post?

Not sure I understand; of course it's fine to share your opinion. My opinion is that yours is far too simplistic and completely ignores the nuances that always appear in constitutional cases such as these.

>Also, the Supreme Court may very well weigh in and may very well be wrong on the law.

Sure... but I'd put more stock in their opinion vs your own.

How old does my religions book have to be to count as sincere? If I indoctrinate my children to believe this, does it count? Is there a certain head count where it becomes sincere?

Depends on the book and the context. Generally yes. Short answer no, long answer yes.

I urge you to search for "sincerely held religious beliefs" as there are an abundance of educational documents and case law related to this subject and this format will probably not do it justice.

How do you know it's not their sincerely held belief? Lots of people have concerns about the government listening in on their sermons and about dark forces changing holy messages to trick people into doing and believing the wrong things.

How do I know that the newly invented religious tenet that the OP doesn't practice doesn't spring from a sincerely held belief?

What basis do you have that the religious tenet is newly invented? Even if it were, what's the basis to uphold that something newly invented is not a sincerely held belief?

OP is clearly posing a hypothetical. And courts absolutely look to the amount of time and frequency with which one practices a tenet of their religion as evidence of sincerity. OP might be sincere, but a court would be unlikely to use that as evidence to justify, for example, a wrongful termination claim.

The Supreme Court just needs to decide it's not sincerely held.

It certainly is my sincerely held belief that E2E communication is necessary. If necessary, a schism on Pastafarianism can be created.

But one has freedom of speech without encryption. I'm having a hard time for freedom of speach applies in this case?

I am from the UK but my understanding is that you cant incriminate yourself which would likely be an issue here?

Freedom of speech includes, as a subset, the right to speak in encrypted speech.

  Wf4SyiBipCvf1+w4LbZVmvTQTknq4OtvI+QV60KAPL88U2BbTvHfPM7TRn0Nl+0kTvI+zjMZdTVp7fDaexcgRoGSOZl1TUsoJOrlygrvCuQlmMCx0GHgBo5i8/jnf4kXSyL8RCIUsiS9A86DNBmcdmTqnVdIykIbVdKZkR+e4df7bq40fBTpF2EvEhG8d9UycGaCK3ULNl4qS+zXtjT/MPTDK2zPZJKon3851a9PboFqhY1jlrI6iL0Z7/LT6+iffhUHNtF0wu/hMKKYr4HkN6iUra8HlpqjFnZ8N3aBpN62hT3zdaEIZg8rqkiHcM9bFmMubaVZZgdqtJuEQK3yYY+Iuj6K/7a7eZLqBWU0DK6lOY/BJIKeg0hRlCnTCk3D2uuWeJCX1SzEdH2jw+RVI2ywd9cIw7Bw/GSnR5WLuxHJSrU55768w0rBfYDFQGfIB/RCLZlyu3eID/v7LJWSUA==

The First Amendment, ostensibly AES-encrypted via https://www.gillmeister-software.com/online-tools/text/encry... using the password 'speech'

Indeed. You could take the analogy a step further in that if you add the government as an additional party in the conversation, it's compelled speech because they're forcing you to communicate differently.

The first amendment has been ruled to allow restrictions on the time, place, and manner of speech, as long as those restrictions are content neutral.

I suspect you could find reasoning in the 1st and 4th amendment that protect encryption. Freedom of Speech would apply to encrypted to or unencrypted communications because you're free to speak in whatever format you choose. It doesn't say that encrypted speech is excluded, so it can only be assumed that it is included.

But you’re assuming that encrypted speech only contains its decrypted meaning or even that its decrypted version means anything. Maybe I want to speak the encrypted text. Maybe an encrypted message is what I want to communicate. Imagine an encryption/coding scheme where the cipher-text looks like normal speech but doesn’t mean what it seems like it means... hopefully you get the idea.

I still don't see how in this encryption scheme you could make the case it isn't allowed by the 1st amendment.

Because you wouldn't be free to speak encrypted messages?