OPINION | This article contains commentary that reflects the author's opinion.
Veteran journalist John Stossel, known for his investigative work on ABC News and Fox News, is battling the tech giant of Facebook in a lawsuit.
As Americans know all too well, Facebook has introduced 3rd party fact-checkers who present themselves as the “arbiters of truth” and “guarantor of factually-accurate information,” despite often publishing incorrect information themselves.
Stossel argues that Facebook caused defamation by labeling his public posts as “misinformation.”
In reviewing Stossel’s case, Allum Bokhari of Breitbart News notes something strange on page two of Facebook’s court filing.
Facebook admits that fact-check labels are just “protected opinion.”
Facebook, which is now called Meta, clearly says that fact-check “labels themselves are neither false nor defamatory; to the contrary, they constitute protected opinion.”
Facebook’s lawyers say “the complaint also fails to state a claim for defamation.”
“For one, Stossel fails to plead facts establishing that Meta acted with actual malice— which, as a public figure, he must.”
“For another, Stossel’s claims focus on the fact-check articles written by Climate Feedback, not the labels affixed through the Facebook platform. The labels themselves are neither false nor defamatory; to the contrary, they constitute protected opinion.”
“And even if Stossel could attribute Climate Feedback’s separate webpages to Meta, the challenged statements on those pages are likewise neither false nor defamatory. Any of these failures would doom Stossel’s complaint, but the combination makes any amendment futile,” Facebook’s lawyers conclude.
The Facebook fact-checker called “Climate Feedback” and “Science Feedback” are among the 3rd party liberal media companies that Facebook as enlisted. They frequently target conservatives and silence political speech.
You can read Facebook’s court filing here.
