I refrained from talking, until I read the BIG NEWS for myself.
The BIG NEWS article is not just about the Molko case. The BIG NEWS explains the history of the law in restraining a religion when it goes too far. It is about other cases including Reynolds (Mormon's bigamy case), the Catholic Church sex cases, the PTL case, etc. These cases rule that religious "freedom" goes only so far, and no more. The BIG NEWS is about where government should draw the line on what a religion does - between a religion's actions and the government's interest in family unity, preservation of life, etc. Reynolds, Molko, the Catholic Church sex cases, and the PTL all hold that when the government has a compelling interest, such as saving lives, it will step in to stop the religion in some way. The article discusses how the government should stop a religion. Should it ban the religion or put them in jail? The BIG NEWS does not advocate criminal law or jailing or losing tax exempt status, but advocates the government allow harmed WTS victims to sue the WTS for MONEY for the lies. The WTS will be able to continue, go door-to-door, tout its "no-blood"/Acts arguments, and can even continue misrepresenting medical doctor's words, as long as they are willing to pay money. The BIG NEWS article quotes summarizes Molko on this point, "The California Supreme Court, however, held that the church's deceitful recruitment practices were unprotected, religiously -motivated conduct and therefore subject to court scrutiny. The court stated that holding a religious organization liable for misrepresentations is the best solution, as it does not implicate either the church or its members' right to associate or worship, or force them to perform acts contrary to their religious belief The court concluded that allowing tort relief for misrepresentation only closes "one questionable avenue" for recruiting members. The court reasoned that opening religious organziation to traditional tort liability protects persons from being harmed and is nondiscriminatory since it applies equally to religious and non-religious group."
I guess this means that when any actor lies and the actor knows or reasonably knows that people will rely on the lies, the actor can be sued...regardless of whether the actor is the WTS ("Dr. X says blood is no good") or the Catholic Church (Priest Mulhaney is a good family counselor) or the head of Enron (Enron is financially sound).
The BIG NEWS article then centers on the Tort of Misrepresentation and how the WTS culture plays into why JWs easily accept the WTS's words without question. The BIG NEWS article then concentrates (for pages and pages and pages) about 18 or so MISREPRESENTATIONS that are in How Can Blood Save Your Life. Most of these misrepresentations were from medical doctors, but two are court cases. (This discussion is really technical, and I think Marvin should comment on it. I understood some, but not all of it. But, I was just an average JW - high school and no more). The issue is whether the WTS can misquote medical doctor's words, dupe JW's into a false security surrounding those lies, and get away with it. It's not about the JW's right to believe in no-blood, it's about whether the JWs can falsify other people's words on non-religious subjects (history, science, medical journal articles, and court cases).
The BIG NEWS then talks about the whole fraction and antologous blood transfusion issue, and shows just how much the WTS partakes of blood and their reversals of policy. This part really makes the WTS look stupid. It talks about the Factor VIII scandal in Crisis of Conscience and the current confusion about hemoglobin and "current therapy" blood procedures. In the end, Ms. Lauderback writes, "Courts look at the sincerity of the religion's belief. The Society purportedly believes that blood once it has left the body is not to be used again. Contrast this belief against the Society' allowance of blood fractions, hemodilution machines, and "current" therapy transfusions of blood. It is a misrepresentation for the Society to state that it and its followers "abstain from blood." (POWERFUL )
Thank you, Ms. Kerry Lauderback-Wood for my Christmas present. (closest I could get to an Xmas tree) The article is right on time given the new blood card and such.
Ned