Opinion
Featured Image
 Ink Drop / Shutterstock.com

(American Thinker) – Surprisingly little attention is being paid to a bombshell admission made by attorneys representing the corporation formerly known as Facebook, Inc., which has now transitioned into Meta Platforms, Inc.

In a court filing responding to a lawsuit filed by John Stossel – claiming that he was defamed by a “fact check” which Facebook used to label a video by him as “misleading” – Meta’s attorneys assert that the “fact check” was an “opinion,” not an actual check of facts and declaration of facts. Under libel law, opinions are protected from liability for libel.

Anthony Watts of Wattsupwiththat explains:

Opinions are not subject to defamation claims, while false assertions of fact can be subject to defamation. The quote in Facebook’s complaint is,

Meta’s attorneys come from the white shoe law firm Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dore, with over a thousand attorneys and more than a billion dollars a year in revenue. They obviously checked out the implications of the matter for Section 230 issues, the legal protection Facebook/Meta have from liability for what is posted on their site.

But at a minimum, this is a public relations disaster, revealing that their “fact checks” are not factual at all and should be labeled as “our opinion” or some such language avoiding the word “fact.”

As an amateur, it seems to me that if Facebook inserts its opinions into posts or blocks them because of its opinion, then that does make it a publisher with legal responsibility for what appears on its website.

Technically speaking, Facebook farms out its “fact-checking” to outside organizations, usually left-wing groups. In the case of Stossel’s defamed video, the outside website is called “Climate Feedback,” which is also named a defendant in the lawsuit.

Watts summarizes well the P.R. implications:

Such “fact checks” are now shown to be simply an agenda to supress [sic] free speech and the open discussion of science by disguising liberal media activism as something supposedly factual, noble, neutral, trustworthy, and based on science.

In light of Facebook’s admission, it’s time for the Washington Post to offer a correction to this piece by Ethan Porter and Thomas J. Wood, published less than a month ago, titled “Fact checks actually work, even on Facebook. But not enough people see them.”

So-called “fact-checking” is a fraud used to cover up the censorship of opinions that differ from those of the powerful Silicon Valley oligarchy. And now we have proof attested to in a court filing by one of the richest companies in the world, represented by some of the most elite lawyers in the world.

Reprinted with permission from American Thinker

Comments

Commenting Guidelines
LifeSiteNews welcomes thoughtful, respectful comments that add useful information or insights. Demeaning, hostile or propagandistic comments, and streams not related to the storyline, will be removed.

LSN commenting is not for frequent personal blogging, on-going debates or theological or other disputes between commenters.

Multiple comments from one person under a story are discouraged (suggested maximum of three). Capitalized sentences or comments will be removed (Internet shouting).

LifeSiteNews gives priority to pro-life, pro-family commenters and reserves the right to edit or remove comments.

Comments under LifeSiteNews stories do not necessarily represent the views of LifeSiteNews.

0 Comments

    Loading...