Facebook has admitted in a court of law that such fact-checks are not factual at all, but merely opinions.
People send me stuff.
As we have previously reported, journalist John Stossel is suing Facebook after Facebook’s ‘fact-checkers’ labeled climate change information that Stossel posted as “false and misleading”. In the middle of all this is the nefarious website “Climate Feedback” which has a bunch of climate zealots that write up what they claim are “fact-checks” for articles, videos, and news stories they disagree with.
Facebook just blew the “fact-check” claim right out of the water in court.
In its response to Stossel’s defamation claim, Facebook responds on Page 2, Line 8 in the court document (download it below) that Facebook cannot be sued for defamation (which is making a false and harmful assertion) because its ‘fact-checks’ are mere statements of opinion rather than factual assertions.
Opinions are not subject to defamation claims, while false assertions of fact can be subject to defamation. The quote in Facebook’s complaint is,
“The labels themselves are neither false nor defamatory; to the contrary, they constitute protected opinion.”
So, in a court of law, in a legal filing, Facebook admits that its ‘fact-checks’ are not really ‘fact’ checks at all, but merely ‘opinion assertions.’
This strikes me as public relations disaster, and possibly a looming legal disaster for Facebook, PolitiFact, Climate Feedback, and other left-leaning entities that engage in biased “fact-checking.”
Such “fact-checks” are now shown to be simply an agenda to suppress free speech and the open discussion of science by disguising liberal media activism as something supposedly factual, noble, neutral, trustworthy, and based on science.
It is none of those.
You can find the court filing below.
This article originally appeared at wattsupwiththat.com. It has been reproduced here with permission.
Francisco Machado says
Use of the word “fact” does not imply opinion. On the contrary, it establishes veracity. Falsely establishes veracity, in the Facebook case.
Susie K Johnson says
In other words, they are just liars by claiming fact check…
Eldridge C. Koppen, Jr. says
It would seem that if it were just opinion, 230 would then require them to let the article or comment stand, and post a note saying something like, “in our opinion, this comment presents incorrect or erroneous information.”
Melanie Rodriguez says
You correctly quoted the complaint, but made the wrong conclusion. Did you notice the keyword in this sentence: “The labels themselves are neither false nor defamatory; to the contrary, they constitute protected opinion.”… Thus, the labels aka the tag lines on the post that read “partly false”, “false”, etc. I am an attorney and every word in a legal filing matters. They are not saying the articles themselves are opinion, they are strictly referring to the labels. Many of the articles cite factual items, thus they would be considered fact.
Evan says
Please be sure of yourselves.
It’s page 10, line 8.
Daric Alford says
How do I become part of the lawsuit?
I have screenshots of Facebook banning me, numerous times, for up to a month at a time because they said I violated their so called community standards with my opinions. Turn this into a class-action lawsuit.
Roxanne Cobianchi says
I’d like to be a part of this lawsuit. My posts are continuously flagged or removed. Not to mention I’m constantly unable to post for 30 days.