19

Multiple websites and media say:

Facebook claims its 'fact-check' are just protected opinions, according to Facebook's legal team.

However, I have not found any official Facebook sources for this claim. Has Facebook's legal team said something similar?

High GPA
  • 341
  • 2
  • 8
  • 16
    In law, all sorts of things are legally "just opinions". – DJClayworth Jun 02 '22 at 13:39
  • 5
    The question seems to imply this would be remarkable in some way. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/09/ex-fox-host-claims-facebook-defamed-him-by-fact-checking-climate-change-videos/ has the actual text of the fact check; "speakers in the video rely on several inaccurate claims and use imprecise language that misleads viewers about the scientific understanding of climate change" sure sounds like an opinion. – ceejayoz Jun 02 '22 at 13:48
  • 1
    @ceejayoz that's the opposite of what the Facebook attorney is saying. She is saying that the labels “Altered”, “Missing Context”, “False”, and “Partly False” are opinion. She is not saying the the text explanations behind the labels are purely opinion. – DavePhD Jun 02 '22 at 14:41
  • 1
    "Missing Context" is almost always gonna be opinion. "Partly False", frequently. "False" and "Altered" less so, but it's entirely possible for them to involve an opinion. – ceejayoz Jun 02 '22 at 14:46
  • 7
    FYI, Newsmax isn't considered a reliable source. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/newsmax-bias-credibilty-reliability/ I don't think that's justification for it being off-topic for this site. I just want people to consider their sources before believing them and to do their own research before posting a question on this site. – computercarguy Jun 02 '22 at 16:10
  • @DJClayworth If one thoroughly read the court document posted by DavePhD, one would find the Facebook lawyer did not say that all things are opinions. – High GPA Jun 02 '22 at 18:07
  • 7
    @computercarguy People are also free to be skeptic about factcheck organizations and their opinions. – High GPA Jun 02 '22 at 18:13
  • 1
    @HighGPA, I think DJClayworth was referring to the legal definition of the word opinion, rather than anything specific to the case in question. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/opinion Also, I asked a question specifically about the credibility of Media Bias Fact Check, and it turns out they are credible. https://skeptics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4589/is-media-bias-fact-check-a-reliable-site – computercarguy Jun 02 '22 at 18:21
  • 4
    @computercarguy The linked question is closed and the best answer is skeptic about your claims: "you are focused almost entirely on what various authorities are saying about this site". Of course you are free to hold any opinion and you are not responsible for the opinions. – High GPA Jun 02 '22 at 18:55
  • @HighGPA, yes, it was closed today (after nearly 2 years of it being just fine for the site) because of unrelated reasons. I'm trying to get it reopened. And the "highest ranked" answer is because it was up voted and mine was downvoted also today. Not to mention that the "questions and concerns" that answer asks are all covered by by answer. – computercarguy Jun 02 '22 at 19:02
  • @computercarguy I checked a few days ago. Your own answer had one upvote and the other answer had three. I will provide more comments there. – High GPA Jun 02 '22 at 19:05
  • @HighGPA, no, my answer had 3 up votes and the other had 2 up votes. I looked at it yesterday after linking it to another meta question. – computercarguy Jun 02 '22 at 19:07
  • I don't see how it can be anything else... –  Jun 02 '22 at 21:39
  • 1
    @DJClayworth doubtful a claim to the factuality of a statement can be opinion – tuskiomi Jun 12 '22 at 01:18
  • https://www.facebook.com/business/help/315131736305613 fact-checking programme on Facebook – SlapdashDumper Aug 20 '22 at 21:51

2 Answers2

23

In Stossel v Facebook et al (US District Court, Northern California), Meta/Facebook filed a document on 29 November 2021 stating:

...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.

The document was signed by Sonal N. Mehta signing as "Attorney for Defendant Meta Platforms, Inc."

So in the court filing Ms. Mehta is expressing that the labels “Altered”, “Missing Context”, “False”, and “Partly False” are opinion. She is not stating that the explanations of why the labels are given is purely opinion.

(alternative source for the court filing document)

DavePhD
  • 103,432
  • 24
  • 436
  • 464
  • 9
    Is there a source for this document that's not the blog site "[Watts Up With That?](https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/12/13/weekly-climate-and-energy-news-roundup-483/)" or Scribd? – Laurel Jun 02 '22 at 00:27
  • 3
    @Laurel not without registering I don't think. There is https://unicourt.com/case/pc-db5-stossel-v-facebook-inc-et-al-1026537 and https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/41954864/Stossel_v_Meta_Platforms,_Inc_et_al – DavePhD Jun 02 '22 at 01:26
  • 9
    Note that this was about a very small subset of Facebook's "fact checks", specifically those that assert that the claim is deceptive or missing important context and where that label was accompanied by an explanation of the factual basis for that assertion, a factual basis that is indisputably true, for example, "factcheckers say this information is missing context and could mislead people" (with links to them saying just that). – David Schwartz Jun 02 '22 at 08:12
  • 30
    @DavidSchwartz: The Stossel "fact check" does seem like Facebook's *opinion;* that a large corporation would defend a defamation suit by claiming that they're voicing an opinion seems very plausible and unremarkable to me. – Robert Harvey Jun 02 '22 at 12:14
  • I suppose it is one of the things the court will consider in the Stossel case, but it does not seem just to me that a corporation could shield itself from liability for defamation by attributing the alleged-defamatory statements to agents working for it, as distinguished from the corporation itself. And such agency does seem to be among the claims Stossel is making. – John Bollinger Jun 02 '22 at 15:33
  • 1
    @JohnBollinger But here the claims are indisputably matters of opinion. The claim is that the *short* statement is deceptive and omits important context. It's not disputable that it omits context. Whether or not that context is important is a matter of opinion. Also, you can't transform political/social disputes into defamation by arguing that saying your political/social claim is wrong defames you because it asserts you're a person who makes wrong claims and that's defamatory. If you could do that, courts would become arbiters of much political debate, destroying free speech. – David Schwartz Jun 02 '22 at 20:21
  • 2
    @JohnBollinger I don't think making counter claims ever constitutes defamation. If one party claims X, and another party says "claim X is not true", I'm quite certain that's never defamation. But if the second party said "They're dirty liars", that might make a defamation suit. –  Jun 02 '22 at 21:53
  • 1
    @DavidSchwartz, I am not taking a position on the merits of Stossel's arguments. I am talking about Facebook trying to distance itself by arguing that they are not liable for statements made by Science Feedback / Climate Feedback. If the statements were made by people operating in that context as agents of FB, which Sossel claims they were, then it's all kinds of problematic for FB to be able to escape liability on the basis that they did not make the statements themselves. Maybe next time I want to defame someone, I'll just hire someone else to do it for me? – John Bollinger Jun 02 '22 at 23:35
  • 5
    For those without access to Law360, it's page 10 of the main document of document #27 on the recap page: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/60415705/stossel-v-meta-platforms-inc/#entry-27 – dylan-myers Jun 03 '22 at 00:55
  • 1
    @dylan-myers excellent, thanks, I changed the alternative link in the answer to your link. – DavePhD Jun 03 '22 at 00:57
  • @JohnBollinger And maybe some future case will test that. But here, there was no reasonable question that the statements were matters of opinion. A statement that a claim, while true, is misleading due to lacking context is unarguably a matter of opinion. So this case presented no opportunity to explore that legal question. Similarly, an attempt to convert a political/social disagreement into defamation by alleging that saying someone's argument is wrong/bad/misleading/awful defames the speaker is simply not acceptable under US law because it would make courts arbitrate polical/social speech. – David Schwartz Jun 05 '22 at 17:38
  • @DavidSchwartz There was an answer below, which correctly noted that the main purpose of Stossel is to have Facebook admit that its factchecks were political opinions, and the FB's factchecks are thus political based not fact-based. – High GPA Jun 07 '22 at 01:05
  • @HighGPA If so, that's hilariously stupid. Political opinions may be fact-based or may not be fact based. Whether or not something is a political opinion and whether or not it's fact-based are unrelated questions. It's even more absurd because whether something is an "opinion" for defamation purposes is even a different concept. For example, "Kyle Rittenhouse is a murderer" is an opinion in the defamation context because it reflects the opinion that it's reasonable to characterize someone who did what we all know KR did as a murderer which is not a fact of or concerning KR. – David Schwartz Jun 07 '22 at 03:06
2

No, Meta's legal team didn't claim that its fact-checking labels are "just opinions" or "just protected opinions". The word "just" doesn't appear in connection with the word "opinion" in the legal document that the article used as a source.

The document does claim that the fact-checking labels are "protected opinion", which is a term of art in U.S. defamation law. Its meaning is defined by the legal code and by previous judicial decisions, not by vernacular use of the word "opinion". (Judicial decisions are, incidentally, also called opinions in law, even when they're legally binding.)

I think that there is a parallel here to the common claims that evolution is "just a theory". Of course, scientists never say that evolution is just a theory. They do say that it's a theory.

The Digital Media Law Project's article about Opinion and Fair Comment Privileges includes this example of a protected opinion: "Danielle is failing out of school because she is a blond and the only thing I ever see her do at the library is check Facebook." Note that "Danielle is failing out of school" is considered an opinion, and that it doesn't matter if it's wrong and your reasoning is stupid, but it does matter that you cite the true facts that are the basis for it. Meta argues that it did so by linking to articles published by Climate Feedback.

Even the definition of "opinion" in general-purpose dictionaries seems broad enough to cover the legal use. Merriam-Webster online has "a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter" as its first definition.

benrg
  • 3,134
  • 20
  • 19