The same 1981 issue created the category of 'disassociation' (leaving by statement or by joining an organisation 'contrary to the Bible'), directed that such persons be announced as 'no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses' and 'treated as are those who have been disfellowshiped'; the Ninth Circuit's 1987 judgment records that this 1981 reinterpretation led former friends to tell Janice Paul 'they could not speak with her'.

“And we all know from our experience over the years that a simple “Hello” to someone can be the first step that develops into a conversation and maybe even a friendship. Would we want to take that first step with a disfellowshiped person?”

“Although we recognize that the harms suffered by Janice Paul are real and not insubstantial, permitting her to recover for intangible or emotional injuries would unconstitutionally restrict the Jehovah’s Witnesses free exercise of religion. ... The constitutional guarantee of the free exercise of religion requires that society tolerate the type of harms suffered by Paul as a price well worth paying to safeguard the right of religious difference that all citizens enjoy.”

“When it is necessary to disfellowship an unrepentant wrongdoer from the congregation, a brief announcement is made, stating: “[Name of person] is no longer one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.” This will alert faithful ones in the congregation to stop associating with that person.—1 Cor. 5:11.”