NKT supports a lawsuit against an Internet blog for allegedly banning certain posters from submitting blog posts for "expressing what the administrators see as Buddhist teachings conflicting with their own views of Buddhism." (NKT calls these administrators a junta)
Apparently, the blog portal closed down a particular forum in that blog that they felt tarnished its blog.
Rather than start their own blog, which takes between a few minutes to a half an hour, and is typically free, the 'oppressed' plaintiffs filed a lawsuit. One of the plaintiffs suing stated, "Litigation between Buddhists is always, always a tragedy." Nevertheless, they find the money (charitible donations) to fund such flights of fancy.
Notably, the web site set up to criticize the administrators (defendants), more charitible donations wasted, does not allow commentary from those who disagree with the site's characterizations of the matter (let's sue!).
Analogously, Shugdenites have filed a lawsuit against the Dalai Lama and the government in India because the Dalai Lama prefers that Shugden worshipers not attend monasteries within one of the schools linked with the Dalai Lama (even though, in fact, Shugdenite monks have been granted their own spaces within the monastery).
Well, NKT is well known for banning Buddhists from its non-profit meditation/profit centers (government subsidized and/or permitted reduced or complete reduction in property and other taxes). Several commentaries from banned NKT students/clergy are presented on this web site and scores of others have appeared elsewhere. Also, many have regretted that NKT bans all Buddhist books and scriptures in its libraries and centers not published by its publishing division, i.e., banning all but Kelsang Gyatso's books.
NKT is also very active with amazon.com, yahoo.com, wikipedia, BuddhaChat and elsewhere getting commentary from its critics banned.
Perhaps aggrieved individuals should sue NKT since NKT believes this avenue to be appropriate, and exemplary enough to promote litigation against those who ban.
But, does this make any sense? Should Coca Cola be forced to include a couple cans of Pepsi in its packaging? Should a manufacturer for a brand of cereal be forced to include other brands of cereal in its boxes? Should a church/religion be forced to include teachings from other churches/religions?
Once again, NKT looks to be a one way street. NKT demands that everyone else do what NKT will not.
Actually, NKT does permit alternate views on a small proportion of its web sites. But, should they be sued if they didn't perform this token gesture? NKT's banning individuals from venues benefitting from government funds, however, does invite legitimate litigation.