FACEBOOK Admit 'Fact-Checks' Really Just 'Opinion' in US Court Documents
Facebook has admitted in a court of law that their so-called 'fact' checks are not factual at all, merely opinion.
Journalist and documentary maker John Stossel is suing Facebook after Facebook’s ‘fact checkers’ labelled climate change information that Stossel posted as “false and misleading”.
Track back to where the 'facts' come from and you find that, in the middle of the propaganda is nefarious website 'Climate Feedback' which is a collection of climate zealots that attack anything they disagree with with some extremely dubious counter articles with what they claim are 'facts'. Facebook, however, just admitted that their “fact checks” are nothing more than opinion, dressed up as 'evidence'.
In its, less than robust, response to Stossel’s defamation claim, Facebook filed documents detailing their defence. 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.
Wait, what? In US law opinions are not subject to defamation, while false assertions of fact can be subject to a defamation claim. The quote in Facebook’s complaint is:
“The labels themselves are neither false nor defamatory; to the contrary, they constitute protected opinion.”
Such “fact checks” are now shown to be simply an agenda to suppress free speech and the open discussion of science by disguising activism as something supposedly factual, noble, neutral, trustworthy, and based on science.
Finally, proof of what we knew all along.