Let's look at one of the cases of a person claiming to be 'cancelled'.
Cory Tomczky is a GOP state senator from Wisconsin. When he attended a meeting about a school's diversity policy, a policy that simply included the proposal that no-one should be discriminated against and outlined the usual protected characteristics - age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation, Cory spoke out against it.
No problem. He can disagree, that's his First Amendment right.
In the course of speaking out he, a man about sixty years old, called a thirteen year old a fag.
Bit of a problem. There was no suggestion the thirteen year old was gay, the language Cory used is definitely inappropriate for a public meeting and certainly a sixty year old man bullying a thirteen year old isn't his best look - but again free speech.
A local paper, The Wausau Pilot and Review, reported on this incident and on Cory Tomczyk's response - which was basically that he was free to call the 13 year old a fag if he wanted too. This is absolutely true, he is free to do that.
Once the story was published Tomczyc tried to sue the paper, claiming that he had been defamed. A common tactic among Republicans who don't seem to understand that reporting factually accurate accounts of their actions that make them look bad is also free speech.
Tomczyk lost his case. Of course he did, even if the alleged incident did not occur that newspaper had acted fairly, giving he a chance to respond and accurately reporting his response.
Cory Tomczyk is now reporting that he has been 'cancelled'.
So who is cancelling whom?
Is a local newspaper, reporting the incident and giving Cory Tomczyk a right to reply 'cancelling' him or is he the one doing the cancelling by trying to abuse the courts to silence reporters?
I know where my vote goes, and it isn't to Cory Tomczyk.
https://wausaupilotandreview.com/2023/0 ... efamation/
