My argument is that there is a material difference between defamation law, which is a legal protection against reputational damage, and cancel culture, which relies on "offence" and has no basis in law.
That's my argument. And you have no coherent response.
What kind of answer do you expect to such an open-ended question? Are you talking about frivolous litigation? Or a case where the defendant would be inclined to settle? Both of those happen in a range of civil matters aside from defamation. That doesn't mean those laws aren't worth having. It doesn't make them all akin to cancel culture.
But please go ahead and explain yourself, and hopefully make a point for once.
Even if someone can't or doesn't defend the defamation claim, it still has a basis in law, which distinguishes it from cancel culture, which doesn't.
That is the material distinction which you simply can't erase.
Is copyright law also cancel culture? Paul McCartney won't let you re-record all the Beatles' songs and pass them off as your own work? OMG that's cancel culture!
Your argument is absurd, baseless and fact-free.
Yes or no? You are getting a tad nasty - are you ok?
I take from your response - no!