God speed to you EdenOne. I agree that the road would be difficult and many have tried before, but I also feel that no other long-standing tolerance of bad group/human/social behaviour changed overnight. They all had to start somewhere and gain momentum.
I have very limited knowledge of US or European law. Nevertheless if a case were to be presented I have a gut feel that it would hang on some other unrelated precedent that is already undergoing change. One that might be closely related is protection of individuals rights against bullying. This has thankfully received a lot of attention in recent times as social media has elevated the act of bullying beyond something that it used to be e.g. physical and verbal abuse in the privacy of a school play area. It seems to me that the law is recognizing the reach of “group-think” to result in a damaging act. And ultimately that is what is at stake here.The problem is that nobody can force person A to talk to person B. That would be a violation of person A's rights. Therefore nobody can stop any individual from shunning someone else and try to bring the legal system to bear on it. I believe that is the reason that no claims against shunning policies by any religions will succeed in the ways that they have been previously presented.
Only if a serious libel suit can be established will the person win (e.g. Olin Moyle). But that is a libel issue and does not set any precedent for ruling against the shunning process itself.
If however a case could be built upon the idea that shunning is a form of bullying – not by those who actually shun – but by those who encourage it to happen against an individual on a group basis – I could see some different dynamics coming into play.
For example if a person posts something defamatory on Facebook which results in people who have no first hand knowledge of the facts treating the victim in such a way as to hurt them, then I reckon that there would be some grounds against the poster.
Why is JW DF'ing different? They argue that they have the right to expel from their membership, and this is true (and a huge hurdle). But if that expulsion is based upon the actions of the bully (the three men in the JC) and the remaining participants in the bullying (all other JWs) are only acting on hearsay, and it is damaging to the individual, then what is the difference between that and the FB bully?
It's just a thought process that has come to mind, and maybe others have tried to legally tread this path before. I don't know. But it's all I can contribute for now.
FG