It is a sobering reminder of what happens when clergy-instigated intrigues stand in the way of freedom of thought and expression.
If outsiders (not familiar with the tactics of Jehovah's Witnesses) actually read this article, it would be understood immediately that Jehovah's Witnesses do not stand in the way of freedom of thought and expression. Outsiders would be left to assume that open freedom of thought and expression that challenges the conformity of the Jehovahs Witnesses brotherhood, is allowed without sanction.
Also, this article could actually serve another purpose and be referenced during future arguments as written proof that the organization does not
condone the suppression of freedom of thought and expression, even within the confines of its own members.
However, the average or uninformed Jehovah's Witness would understand the article differently.
For example, notice how the conclusion of the quote focuses on the term clergy and disregards mentioning the possibility of others, not clergy who might stand in the way of freedom of thought and expression as well.
Since the average, uninformed, rather than disingenuous, member of Jehovah's Witnesses understands that they have no such thing as a 'clergy' and based on the worded conclusion of the article that implicates only clergy as manipulative, it would be difficult for uninformed Jehovah's Witnesses to comprehend that they actually do not support freedom of thought while actively allowing the organization to suppress, via disfellowshipping, freedom of thought and expression that conflicts with current corporate policy.