Is &quot;canceling&quot; people tortious interference?
<p>Is &quot;canceling&quot; people tortious interference?</p>
<p>As a concrete example, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Richard Stallman</a> (RMS) is/was employed by the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Software_Foundation" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Free Software Foundation</a> (FSF), MIT and other organizations. He voiced opinions that some found disagreeable (For example, he <a href="https://stallman.org/articles/genderless-pronouns.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">publicly opposed the use of singular &quot;they&quot;</a>, and of the term &quot;sexual assault&quot; when applied to underage sex)</p>
<p>Ostensibly for this and possibly other  reasons, various individuals and organizations are trying to <a href="https://rms-open-letter.github.io/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">pressure</a> the FSF and his other employers to fire Stallman. Can this be tortious interference?</p>
<hr />
<p>From the <a href="https://rms-open-letter.github.io/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">RMS-open-letter</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>There has been enough tolerance of RMS’s repugnant ideas and behavior.
We cannot continue to let one person ruin the meaning of our work. Our
communities have no space for people like Richard M. Stallman, and we
will not continue suffering his behavior, giving him a leadership
role, or otherwise holding him and his hurtful and dangerous ideology
as acceptable.</p>
<p><strong>We are calling for the removal of the entire Board of the Free Software Foundation.</strong> These are people who have enabled and empowered
RMS for years. They demonstrate this again by permitting him to rejoin
the FSF Board. It is time for RMS to step back from the free software,
tech ethics, digital rights, and tech communities, for he cannot
provide the leadership we need. <strong>We are also calling for Richard M.
Stallman to be removed from all leadership positions, including the
GNU Project.</strong></p>
<p>We urge those in a position to do so to stop supporting the Free
Software Foundation. Refuse to contribute to projects related to the
FSF and RMS. Do not speak at or attend FSF events, or events that
welcome RMS and his brand of intolerance. We ask for contributors to
free software projects to take a stand against bigotry and hate within
their projects. While doing these things, tell these communities and
the FSF why.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>While the anti-RMS sentiment dominated the headlines, it appears to voice a minority opinion, as the <a href="https://rms-support-letter.github.io/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">pro-RMS letter</a> currently has more signatures.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, some corporate sponsors, such as RedHat/IBM <a href="https://www.theregister.com/2021/03/26/redhat_fsf_funding_richard_stallman/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">withdrew their support of the FSF</a>.</p>

<p>&quot;Cancellation&quot; is generally a result of some statement or action a person made becoming public or having been made in public.  Tortious interference requires that the defendant's actions are independently wrongful, such as defamation or criminal acts against the plaintiff.  Truthful speech and opinions which do not allege facts are protected by the First Amendment (as well as state constitutions) and thus cannot be wrongful conduct.  To apply that here, anyone can react to public knowledge about a person and call for that person to be fired, that is protected speech.  As far as I know in this particular petition's case, RMS does not dispute that he made the statements they are attributing to him and using as evidence for their call to remove him from the board.</p>

united-states contract-law employment tort