Facebook Attorneys Argue Fact Checks Are Opinions

American Thinker: Stunning: Facebook court filing admits '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.

...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.

All the fact checks and censorship by Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc. would thus make them publishers and not subject to Section 230 protections.

So-called "fact-checking" is a fraud used to cover up the censorship of opinions that 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.

Investors have no idea how great a legal risk BigTech companies have placed themselves into. One cannot simply focus on the courts either. Their inteference in elections and lies about vaccine side-effects has opened the door to political retribution because the scale of these crimes reaches the point to where allowing these companies to exist at all will be debated.