The discussion above implies that there may not be a party response due to “confidentiality” which seems odd when the party has defamed someone. I’d expect the ejectee would waive confidentiality.
The discussion above implies that there may not be a party response due to “confidentiality” which seems odd when the party has defamed someone. I’d expect the ejectee would waive confidentiality.
ToastedRavioli@midwest.social 6 hours ago
Defamation requires some degree of lying to damage someones reputation, so this is not defamation.
Technically they suspended them for being elected and for the subsequent media interest, per their own words. Both of those things factually occurred
There is much that could be said about how fucked up that is, but it is also not defamation