I might write to ombudsman for the Times and raise why important legal questions were noti mpressed. People don't purchase the NY Times for AP feeds. They want the noted and oft rewarded reporting skills from NYT reporters. I believe it merits a magazine article. Neutrality is a good place to start. Cosnti's lawyer should have been asked probing questions that I never heard on the conference call.
An editor has to decide. We must bear in my mind that the Witnesses are a new fringel religion. I fear this decision will be overturned by an appellate court. If I had the time, I would write an op-ed piece. Perhaps we should get together and hone comments that are neutral. Certain posters here have great and diverse insight. Perhaps we could each write a blurb. If it approaches neutrality, the Times might publish it. This case can be a springboard for so many pressing societal issues regarding religion in general. All my concerns also apply to the Roman Catholic Church.
If we split it up, no one person would have to write a very long subject. Not to excluse anyone but I believe my legal expertise would help, Cofty, and Cedars raise good points. Barn Anderson and BLondie. If we all addressed different aspects, it would be powerful, IMO. What do others feel? I believe it in enough to spend a substantial chunk of time on it. Of course, we would preaching to the choir in the NYT.