Wisconsin Mom Wins Free Speech Battle Over School Criticism

In a significant victory for parental rights and free speech, Wisconsin mother and conservative activist Scarlett Johnson has prevailed in a defamation lawsuit stemming from her criticism of her local school district’s diversity initiatives. Johnson, a leader in the Wisconsin chapter of Moms for Liberty, found herself at the center of a legal battle after posting critical comments on social media about the Mequon-Thiensville School District’s “Social Justice Coordinator,” Mary MacCudden. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals ultimately sided with Johnson, ruling that her comments were protected opinions rather than defamatory statements. This case highlights the increasingly contentious debates occurring in school districts across America, where parents are pushing back against what they view as ideological programming in public education.

The controversy began in October 2022 when Johnson shared a screenshot of MacCudden’s LinkedIn profile on social media, questioning why taxpayer money was being spent on a “Social Justice Coordinator” position. Her posts included pointed language, referring to MacCudden as a “woke, White woman w/ a god complex” and a “White savior.” In additional comments, Johnson described diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) specialists more broadly as “woke lunatics” and “bullies” who attempt to silence parents who disagree with their approach. MacCudden responded by filing a defamation lawsuit, claiming Johnson’s characterizations damaged her reputation. While a circuit court initially allowed parts of the case to proceed, Johnson and her legal team from the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty appealed, arguing that her social media posts represented constitutionally protected speech typical of modern public discourse.

The appeals court’s decision, handed down Tuesday, represented a comprehensive victory for Johnson. The judges determined that terms like “bully” and “lunatic” are subjective opinions, while descriptors such as “woke,” “White savior,” and “god complex” are too “vague and do not have a clear meaning or definition” to constitute defamatory statements that could be proven true or false. The court concluded, “We conclude that Johnson’s statements do not constitute defamation. Thus, we reverse and remand for the circuit court to enter summary judgment in Johnson’s favor.” This ruling effectively ended the case in Johnson’s favor, though one judge did dissent, suggesting that since the posts identified MacCudden by name and might have implied undisclosed facts, a jury should have been allowed to consider the matter further.

For Johnson, this lawsuit represented more than just a personal legal challenge – it symbolized what she views as a broader effort to silence parents who question progressive educational approaches. She revealed that this wasn’t the first time she had faced such accusations, recalling a similar defamation claim filed just days before a 2021 school board election in which she was a candidate. Johnson characterized these legal actions as politically motivated attempts to intimidate her and discourage her advocacy. “I felt I had to fight back in this case. It couldn’t be like the other. I had to stand up because this would never stop,” Johnson explained in an interview. “They’d keep going after parents like me.” Her decision to contest the lawsuit rather than settle demonstrates the determination many parent activists feel as they push back against what they perceive as ideological overreach in public education.

The significance of this ruling extends far beyond Johnson’s individual circumstances. She believes the court’s decision establishes an important legal precedent that will empower other parents to speak out about educational concerns without fear of retaliatory litigation. “This sets legal precedent,” Johnson stated. “Parents everywhere can speak the truth about what’s happening in their schools with a little less fear that they’re going to be dragged into court for frivolous lawsuits.” Luke Berg, Deputy Counsel at the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, echoed this sentiment in his public statement following the ruling: “Scarlett, like all of us, has the right to question and criticize her government. The defamation lawsuit against her was meritless and should have been promptly dismissed. We are pleased that the Court agreed, and that Scarlett can put this distraction behind her.”

This case emerges during a period of heightened tension in American education, as schools have become battlegrounds for competing visions of how to address issues of diversity, history, and social justice. Parent advocacy groups like Moms for Liberty have grown rapidly in recent years, organizing against what they characterize as “woke” educational approaches that they believe prioritize progressive ideologies over academic fundamentals. On the other side, educators and administrators who support DEI initiatives argue these programs are essential for creating inclusive learning environments that prepare students for an increasingly diverse society. The Johnson case illustrates how these philosophical disagreements have moved beyond school board meetings into courtrooms, with significant implications for free speech, parental involvement in education, and the boundaries of acceptable criticism of public institutions. While MacCudden’s attorney did not respond to requests for comment on the ruling, the case undoubtedly represents just one chapter in an ongoing national conversation about education, free speech, and the role of parents in shaping school policies.