Stunning: Facebook court filing admits their 'fact checks' are just a matter of opinion

Surprisingly little attention is being paid to a bombshell admission made by the 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" 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 video that was defamed, the outside website is called "Climate Feedback," which is also named a defendant in the lawsuit.

That deleted posts on FacePlant are based upon ‘opinion’ is no real surprise to anyone on the right. And it doesn’t matter if the ‘opinion’ originated at FacePlant or a sub-contractor; that is immaterial.

IMHO the position taken by promoting the ‘opinion’ label is an attempt to move the discussion away from the absolute fact that the driving force in deciding what to censor is nothing but pure leftist ideology.

The section 230 language protecting the ‘platform only’ status of FacePlant, Twits, etc should be removed and let the lawsuits and the legal system work out what these platforms should allow. Unfortunately the only real winners in that scenario will be the legal profession.

Of course they’re opinions. As are all the other media “fact checks.”

The problem is the “fact check” label being used without at least honestly advising people that these “fact checks” are still actually only opinions.

The only real “fact checks” that might rightly be called such would be for the most simple, straightforward, and incontrovertible situations. For example, a political speech in which a politician misidentifies another politician. “When John Smith was senator 10 years ago...” when John Smith wasn’t. And like Biden and that train story.

But for complex issues and controversies, the MSM “fact checks” are the style used by the Soviet Union and the CCP.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.