I wrote earlier that I thought Unthank's victory should get press coverage. JWs are insignificant but the themes underlying the action can apply to any large, very controlled religion. Quakers never had many followers in England or America. Yet they had enormous influence in abolition of slavery and other social justice causes. The case can be used to illustrate issues that cross denominational barriers. Are a few issues so compelling that government regulation is absolutely necessary and ordinary free exercise rules should not be applied?
Neutral laws of general applicability can be applied even though the American free exercise of religion standards are so extraordinarily high. Polygamy is illegal. It doesn't matter if you are a Mormon. You could go to prison -- if authorities decide to prosecute. Native Americans have been using peyote for countless centuries yet it was outlawed successfully. The federal government would not approve its use even for small and monitored Native American rituals.
People are always talking about being in the world but not of the world. When are your religious practices too dangerous to be allowed? A valid religion could call for murdering people (Manson). You go to prison or you die. It doesn't matter that the murder was a religious imperative.
What about letters to the editor, esp. in smaller communities?