But The Free Press has no backbone at all… or integrity.
On April Fool’s Day—appropriately enough—host Maya Sulkin aired two hours of unchallenged smears against the Church of Scientology, featuring serial fabulist Claire Headley.
Headley is not a credible critic. She is a failed one. More than a decade ago, she and her husband hauled their fabricated claims into federal court—only to be thrown out on summary judgment. The Ninth Circuit unanimously affirmed. The court ordered the couple to pay over $42,000 in costs to the Church.
The judge found: “The record overwhelmingly shows that the Headleys joined and voluntarily worked for [the Church] because they believed that it was the right thing to do, because they enjoyed it.”
That should have been the end of it.
Instead, it was merely a rehearsal for a repeat performance with willing accomplice Maya Sulkin.
Does she believe that ignoring a legal letter will make the defamation disappear?
On The Free Press’ platform, Headley recycled the same claims that got her laughed out of court—this time to an audience Sulkin made no effort to inform or protect from Headley’s already discredited claims.
There was no fact-checking. No balancing voice. No notice to the Church.
In fact, there was no journalism at all.
Just a microphone and a steady stream of bigoted defamation.
Sulkin didn’t merely host the performance—she joined in, seasoning the allegations with approving interjections like “shocking,” “evil,” “criminal” and “cruel.”
At one point, she even wondered aloud why Scientologists aren’t publicly shamed for practicing their religion.
This from someone who, in her own writing, praised Free Press founder Bari Weiss for teaching her that “unrelenting Jewish pride is the most effective tool to combat antisemitism.”
Yet when the target changes, so does the principle.
A strange standard for a journalist who publicly prides herself on combating bigotry. More damning still for Sulkin: Even minimal due diligence would have revealed that Headley is a member of Anonymous—the criminal cyberterrorist hate group whose online ecosystem has long trafficked in virulent antisemitism, including imagery and slogans like “With Jews You Lose!”
But the fiasco didn’t end with the broadcast.
The Church sent a demand letter to The Free Press. It was acknowledged by in-house counsel Janell Wise, who promised a response “shortly.”
That was on April 9.
Since then: crickets.
No response. No correction. No retraction. Not even the pretense of a reply.
Wise is, by her own account, an expert in defamation law. She knows what was aired. She knows the legal standard. She knows what happens when a publisher platforms claims already rejected in federal court—without acknowledging that fact, without verification, without rebuttal and without even contacting the subject of the attack.
Worse, the “reporter” didn’t just allow it—she reveled in it. Wise would know exactly what that means.
And yet—nothing.
Does she believe that ignoring a legal letter will make the defamation disappear?
That silence is a winning strategy in the face of the indefensible?
That accountability is optional for a publication that markets itself as “fearless”?
Or is the truth simpler?
The Free Press is fearless—right up until it isn’t.
Right up until it becomes everything it claims to oppose.
Because right now, the publication’s “values” read less like principles and more like decoration—nice words, prominently displayed and promptly discarded the moment they stand in the way of its own bigotry.
And its in-house counsel? Missing in action.
The result is a perfect trifecta of failure:
- A host too careless to check her sources, and too biased to care.
- A platform willing to broadcast discredited claims without scrutiny, so long as they spare its own sacred cows.
- And a lawyer unwilling to defend—or even acknowledge—the mess.
Call it what it is: cowardice. Yellow-bellies practicing yellow journalism.
And until Janell Wise finds her voice, The Free Press will remain exactly what its silence suggests: not a publication that stands by its work—but one that runs from it.
Editor’s note: We have made multiple attempts to contact The Free Press’ in-house counsel. Aside from a single unfulfilled promise to respond, she has declined comment. If she or the publication chooses to respond, this story will be updated.
