Jeff T- Not to put too fine a point on it, but that is the difference I am talking about. Under the 1st amendement the JW can state those that leave are mentally diseased all day no problem. It's protected under the first amendement. If they strayed out to say Bro. John Q. Smith former member of the Governing Body is mentally diseased they are in a grey area especially if they do not qualify that opinion as opinion. Now, if someone is DF'd and they call that person's boss, landlord, or client (someone with a financial connection) and say hey, just FYI John Q. Smith is mentally diseased and that person's response is to fire, evict, or cancel a contract for that reason then their is grounds for defamation suits. The rule is the U.S. is it must have been something that was A) untrue and B) targeted at a specific relationship and C) it harmed the individual financially. As with most things, the problem is proving it. Most people would not want to be involved and would say their were other reasons for terminating the financial relationship.
England interprets their libel and slander laws at more liberally, which is why you see more celebrities going after tabloids in the U.K.