Why Republican ‘Anti-SLAPP’ Legislation Protecting Media Failed

Daniel R. Blume (CC-BY-SA)

A bill that aimed to prevent the use of expensive lawsuits to silence journalists and other members of the public was blocked by the state Senate due to opposition from Sen. Cory Tomczyk (R-Mosinee), who previously imperiled a local Wausau paper.

Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation — also known as SLAPP lawsuits — are a way of intimidating and quieting critics, including journalists and activists, by burdening them with the cost of expensive, baseless legal proceedings. Anti-SLAPP laws aim to provide a remedy.

Rep. Jim Piwowarczyk (R-Hubertus), who coauthored the bill, said in an email to the Wisconsin Examiner that he was “very disappointed that one or two Republican senators would block a bill that would protect everyone’s First Amendment rights.” He said he identified a few senators opposed to allowing the bill to make it to the Senate floor, and made several attempts to contact them and address potential concerns.

Rep. Jim Piwowarczyk (R-Hubertus) official portrait.

“The vast majority of Republicans AND Democrats in the state Legislature supported this bill,” Piwowarczyk said.

Bill cosponsors included Reps. Elijah Behnke (R-Town of Chase), Lindee Brill (R-Sheboygan Falls), Barbara Dittrich (R-Oconomowoc), Randy Udell (D-Fitchburg) and Sylvia Ortiz-Velez (D-Milwaukee).

Piwowarczyk is the co-founder of Wisconsin Right Now, a conservative publication focused on state government issues. He was elected to his first term in the state Assembly in 2024, and the anti-SLAPP legislation became a top priority because he said he has “seen firsthand how ordinary citizens, citizen activists, influencers, concerned parents and small media outlets are systematically targeted with lawsuits by entities with large or unlimited resources in an attempt to silence them.”

“These lawsuits weren’t about legitimate grievances; they are a form of legal warfare or lawfare. As the saying goes, ‘The punishment is the process,’” Piwowarczyk said.

The bill passed on a voice vote in the Assembly in February, but never received a vote in the Senate.

Wisconsin Right Now cofounder with Piwowarczyk, Jessica McBride, recently accused Tomczyk in a Facebook post of maneuvering behind the scenes to block the bill from a vote.

Tomczyk has some history with the issue, having prompted the introduction of anti-SLAPP legislation by Democratic lawmakers in 2023. He placed the Wausau Pilot & Review, a small digital newspaper started and edited by Shereen Siewert, in a dire financial situation when he sued the paper for defamation in 2021 after the it published a report that Tomczyk called a young teen an anti-LGBTQ slur at a Marathon County board was meeting. The paper reported that Tomczyk was overheard using the slur as a resolution called “A Community for All,” an effort to reinforce acceptance of diversity and inclusivity, was being debated.

According to the New York Times, Tomczyk admitted in a deposition to having used the slur before “out of joking and out of spite” about his gay brother.

The case was dismissed in April 2023 after the judge found that Tomczyk had failed to meet the legal standard for defamation. His appeal of the judgement was dismissed in 2024. Tomczyk’s lawsuit prompted Democratic lawmakers to introduce anti-SLAPP legislation in 2023, although it never advanced in the Republican-led Legislature.

This session, Piwowarczyk introduced his own proposal, the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act, to curb retaliatory lawsuits and gathered bipartisan support for it.

Piwowarczyk’s bill would have created a process for courts to quickly dismiss lawsuits that target protected speech or participation in government proceedings, including by requiring a prompt hearing and halting constant discovery while the motion is pending. The bill would have also allowed for the parties that prevailed in court to recover attorney fees. The bill was based on model legislation developed by the nonprofit Uniform Law Commission.

Piwowarczyk has cited other cases he said prompted the bill, including one in which Moms For Liberty activist Scarlett Johnson was sued for defamation for calling a former teacher in the Mequon-Thiensville School District a “bully,” “lunatic,” “woke” and “white savior” on social media. Johnson eventually got representation from the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, a conservative legal nonprofit, and her case was dismissed.

Wisconsin Right Now is not the only conservative endorser of the legislation. Meg Ellefson, a conservative podcast host, wrote in a Facebook post that she was “very disappointed” and that Tomczyk has a “shallow and myopic view” of the issue.

“This was an opportunity to protect the free speech of conservatives in Wisconsin and likely won’t come around again due to predictions that Republicans will lose control of the state Senate in this next election,” she wrote.

A coalition of Wisconsin local media stakeholders including Siewert, Freedom of Information Council president Bill Lueders and Wisconsin Watch managing editor Jim Malewitz, signed a letter urging lawmakers to pass the bill and protect journalists and members of the public earlier this month.

“Amid the many threats facing our communities, it’s more clear than ever that our right to free speech is under attack,” the letter stated. “We firmly believe that this bill is a strong solution to threats against the First Amendment in Wisconsin. By advancing this piece of legislation, lawmakers would be making a wise nonpartisan investment in protecting the speech and civic health of the commonwealth while laying the groundwork for a sustainable, community-rooted local news ecosystem.”

Wisconsin is one of 11 states in the U.S. that does not have Anti-SLAPP protections in place.

Tomczyk, however, has rejected the claim that he is the only reason did not advance.

Sen. Cory Tomczyk official portrait.

“I have to respond to the ridiculous notion that I have somehow made an assault on free speech in our state,” Tomczyk wrote in a Facebook post on Sunday evening. “Most media is dominated by the left with only 2 or 3 right leaning outlets in the entire state. This bill provides more [protection] for the media and does little or nothing for the ordinary citizen.”

Tomczyk said the bill was discussed during a Republican Senate caucus meeting where he was the only person to speak on the bill.

“It is in caucus that the Senators who have proposed bills,,, have the opportunity to support and promote their bill if there is opposition to it.” he wrote on Facebook. “When appropriately numbered Senate Bill 666 came up for discussion, I simply told my colleagues to be very careful and make sure they understand what they are voting for,” Tomczyk said. “I was the only Senator to speak against the bill. No Senator spoke FOR the bill.”

In his post, Tomczyk also, again, denied that he ever said the slur at the meeting, noted that he wasn’t a state lawmaker at the time and questioned the effectiveness of the legislation.

Language in the bill states that one of three criteria that would be used to determine whether a case can be dismissed through the process is if “the responding party fails to establish a prima facie case as to each element of the cause of action or the moving party establishes either that the responding party failed to state a cause of action or that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”

“You got that?” Tomczyk wrote about the language. “Clear as mud right?”

Piwowarczyk said, however, that many of his colleagues got on board with the legislation after he explained its purpose and some of the examples.

Sen. Eric Wimberger (R-Gillett) was the lead Senate author. He was not available for an interview with the Examiner, but said in a statement that “we unfortunately didn’t have the votes on Senate Bill 666 in the Senate as we prepared for last week’s floor session.”

The state Senate and Assembly have both adjourned their final regular floor sessions of the year. Work in the Capitol will be minimal for the remainder of the year as lawmakers turn their attention to running for reelection.

Free Press Action said it would also be advocating for the bill next year.

“SLAPP lawsuits are designed to punish and silence, not to win. Even when dismissed, they can cost defendants tens of thousands of dollars and years in court. When anti-SLAPP laws are enacted, targeted victims can defeat these speech-chilling attacks,” Arin Anderson, the Wisconsin civic media campaign manager for Free Press Action, said in a statement. “Passing this broadly supported bill would send a clear message: Wisconsin stands up for free speech, open debate and the right of people to hold the powerful accountable.

When lawmakers return in January 2027, the makeup of both the state Assembly and Senate could be quite different, with Republican leaders and other incumbents retiring and Democratic lawmakers eyeing majorities.

“I look forward to reintroducing the bill next session and working with my colleagues to protect Wisconsin residents from meritless, anti-speech lawsuits,” said Wimberger, who is not up for reelection.

Piwowarczyk said reintroducing the bill at the start of the next legislative session will be one of his first actions should he be elected to another term in office.

“This bill is bipartisan, so regardless of what happens in November, I expect to have wide support again,” he said.

Republican ‘anti-SLAPP’ legislation, opposed by legislator who targeted local paper, fails was originally published by Wisconsin Examiner.