ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

STUNNING: Facebook Lawyers Admit “Fact Checker” Disclaimers Are Only “Opinions” In Defense of Lawsuit Seeking Millions by John Stossel

Fact Checker
John Stossel, alleges Facebook “defamed” him by marking his videos with “fact check” disclaimers but lawyers for Facebook requested a dismissal, saying that their labels were not false or defamatory; instead, they were “protected opinions” – typically more difficult to win in a defamation lawsuit. Physiologist Dave Champion, Ph.D. called the admission “stunning.” File photo: Stossel/YouTube, Wachiwit, Frederic Legrand, Shutter Stock, licensed.

SAN FRANCISCO, CA – In a recent court filing, lawyers representing Meta – the parent company of Facebook – admitted that “fact check” disclaimers that appear on posts on the social media platform are, in reality, the equivalent of “opinions.”

Facebook, along with two of its fact-checking partners Science Feedback and Climate Feedback, were recently the subject of a lawsuit filed by Television journalist John Stossel, perhaps best known for an infamous 1984 incident where he was legitimately slapped in the face twice on-camera by a pro wrestler, resulting in a lawsuit.

Stossel has alleged that Facebook “defamed” him by marking two of his video reports posted on the social media platform with “fact check” disclaimers.


FREE DIGITAL SUBSCRIPTION: GET ONLY 'FEATURED' STORIES BY EMAIL

Big Tech is using a content filtering system for online censorship. Watch our short video about NewsGuard to learn how they control the narrative for the Lamestream Media and help keep you in the dark. NewsGuard works with Big-Tech to make it harder for you to find certain content they feel is 'missing context' or stories their editors deem "not in your best interest" - regardless of whether they are true and/or factually accurate. They also work with payment processors and ad-networks to cut off revenue streams to publications they rate poorly by their same bias standards. This should be criminal in America. You can bypass this third-world nonsense by signing up for featured stories by email and get the good stuff delivered right to your inbox.
 

One of the reports in question – “Government Fueled Fires” – concerned 2020 California forest fires and featured interviews with climate change expert Michael Shellenberger; in the video, Stossel stated that climate change has contributed to the fires, but Shellenberger said that forest mismanagement played a much greater role.

Facebook Lawsuit Stossel
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21068069/stossel.pdf

Facebook’s fact checkers labeled the video as “misleading” and “missing context,” and featured a link to provide more information on the topic; however, the linked website instead stated that the California wildfires were the fault of forest mismanagement, as opposed to climate change.

Stossel’s lawsuit says that claim is not contained in the video; in fact, he acknowledged: “Climate change has made things worse. California has warmed 3 degrees over 50 years.” Stossel lawsuit contends that that Facebook’s disclaimer caused immediate harm to his viewership and reputation; he is asking for at least $2 million and for the disclaimers to be removed in his lawsuit, which was filed in a federal court in northern California.

Later, two of the Climate Feedback scientists involved in fact-checking Stossel’s video admitted that they had never watched the video.

Stossel says in his lawsuit that a similar satiation occurred in relation to a second video he produced about environmental alarmists.

Meta lawyers responded to Stossel’s lawsuit by requesting a dismissal, claiming that their fact-checkers are “independent from Facebook” and that they are protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which does not hold social media platforms responsible for contents posted by its users.

Radio and television show Physiologist Dave Champion, Ph.D. – aka Dr Reality, called the admission “stunning.”

The lawyers also say that Stossel’s lawsuit fails to prove that Meta acted with actual malice against a public figure, and that the fact checking disclaimers against him were not false or defamatory; instead, the lawyers argued, they were protected opinion.” Opinions are typically more difficult to successfully win a defamation lawsuit over.

protected opinion
https://cornwallalliance.org/2021/12/in-court-filing-facebook-admits-fact-checks-are-nothing-more-than-opinion/

U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh will hear oral arguments on the defense’s motion to dismiss in March 2022.

Conservative icon Candace Owens also began suing Facebook’s third-party fact-checkers last year saying ‘it is time to fact-check the fact-checkers’ as she named Facebook in her lawsuit.


Comment via Facebook

Corrections: If you are aware of an inaccuracy or would like to report a correction, we would like to know about it. Please consider sending an email to corrections@publishedreporter.com and cite any sources if available. Thank you. (Policy)