The county board meeting in Wausau, Wis., on Aug. 12, 2021, got contentious fast. Nobody disputes that.
But what happened about 12 minutes in, as members of the north-central Wisconsin community squabbled over a resolution intended to promote diversity and inclusion, has become the subject of a bitter legal fight that threatens to bankrupt one of the few remaining sources of local news in the area. First Amendment experts say the case highlights a troubling trend of wealthy and powerful people using defamation law as retribution.
Acting on a tip from a reader, The Wausau Pilot & Review reported that during the meeting, the owner of a shredding and recycling company, Cory Tomczyk, called a 13-year-old boy a “fag.” Mr. Tomczyk, who is now a Republican state senator, denied using the slur and demanded a retraction. When The Pilot & Review stood by its article, Mr. Tomczyk sued.
Three additional people who attended the meeting later gave sworn statements that they had heard Mr. Tomczyk use the word. And during a deposition, he admitted having said it on other occasions.
In late April 2023, a judge dismissed the lawsuit, ruling that Mr. Tomczyk had not met the legal standard for proving that the report defamed him.
But that was not the end of the matter for the small and financially pinched Pilot & Review, a nonprofit that has already racked up close to $150,000 in legal bills from the case. Mr. Tomczyk has filed an appeal. And the publication’s founder and editor, Shereen Siewert, said she has no idea how she can continue paying both her lawyers and her staff of four.
“Every time I open the mail,” said Ms. Siewert, describing how she dreads finding a new bill, “I want to throw up.”
“Those dollars could be going to pay reporters for boots on the ground coverage, not paying legal fees for a lawsuit that appears designed to crush us,” she added.
As politicians have grown more comfortable condemning media outlets they view as hostile — banning reporters from covering events, attacking them on social media, accusing them of being an “enemy of the people” — some public officials have started using the legal system as a way of hitting back. Former President Donald J. Trump has filed numerous unsuccessful defamation lawsuits against news organizations. Late last month a federal judge threw out his latest — a $475 million suit against CNN. Other prominent Republicans have followed his lead, including Devin Nunes, the former Republican congressman Mr. Trump hired to run his social media network, Truth Social. Mr. Nunes has sued several outlets, including The Washington Post and CNN, for publishing stories that were unfavorable to him. In Mississippi, former Gov. Phil Bryant is suing a news organization over its Pulitzer Prize-winning coverage that exposed how he misspent state welfare money to build a volleyball stadium.
The Wisconsin case, First Amendment experts warned, shows how a single defamation suit can become a cudgel against the media in a way the law never intended. For small local news organizations, many of which are barely getting by financially, the suits threaten to put them out of business.
That is the case with The Pilot & Review, even though there is scant evidence that it reported anything false — let alone that it did so with “actual malice,” the long-established burden of proof that public officials like Mr. Tomczyk must meet in a defamation case.
Excuse me if I find your criticism disingenuous and as duplicitous as the criticism you accuse the media of having when you admit this small media outlet isn’t responsible for doing the thing you go on to be critical of yet continue to use it as a platform for your criticism regardless. 
If you actually read the article you’d have see that other media outlets were mentioned (specifically CNN). And this has been an on-going problem with our shit mass media for a long ass time. They give these fascists a free pass and then 2 seconds later those very same fascists turn around and attack the media. I literally wrote in my reply that this small newspaper isn’t the same as the large corporate ones, but in the end what one media does reflects onto all media outlets.
Using a story about a small, local media outlet as a platform to rant about the problems with mass media just shows your tenuous grasp on the situation and your underlying agenda here. You’re in no position to start making accusations as to who here read or understood what.
Thanks for proving that you didn’t actually read the article or else you’d have known that they mention other lawsuits, including CNN and The Washington Post.
red herring, moving the goalposts, and a whataboutism with a side of ad hominem.
that’s four logical fallacies in one sentence, all while saying nothing of substance. impressive haul.
Removed by mod
why would I admit to your fallacious argument after proving them wrong repeatedly?
wow, that’s just proof of your magical, wishful thinking not at all based in reality.
The article itself says otherwise (if you read it, you’d know), but clearly you must stubbornly defend your incorrect position.
if it did, you’d have no problem quoting where it said so rather than hurling insults because I’m not stupid enough to believe your fallacious assertions.