Judge finds fact-faking Facebook “fact-check” false

By Christopher Monckton

Die Welt reports that The Regional Court of Appeal in Karlsruhe has ruled against a fact-faking “fact-check” on Facebook. Last September Tichys Einblick (Tichy’s Insight), a centre-Right magazine in Germany, had published an open letter to the UN Secretary-General from more than 500 scientists, researchers and professionals in the worldwide Climate Intelligence Group (CLINTEL) saying that “There is no climate emergency”.

The “research” network Correctiv, which Facebook uses to ensure that non-Communist content is censored, had flagged Tichy’s article as “partly false”. Now a judge has found Facebook’s fact-faking “fact-check” false and has ordered it to be taken down, on pain of a fine of up to 250,000-euro fine or up to two years’ imprisonment in default.

According to Correctiv, not all of the signatories were scientists, some of the points in the open letter were incorrect, and the Party Line on climate had not been sufficiently taken into account. Tichy’s sued Facebook, saying that Correctiv’s supposed “fact-check” was merely an expression of opinion, and that Correctiv’s special status as Facebook’s fact-faker constituted unfair competition.

Tichy’s Insight complained that Correctiv’s assessment was not a fact-check at all, but a mere expression of opinion, and that its special status as a Facebook fact-checker constituted unfair competition.

The court found that, though both Tichy’s Insight and Correctiv could publish their articles on the social network, Correctiv was setting itself up as having the right to check and rate Tichy’s, establishing a false hierarchy of truths.

What is more, where Correctiv decides that a posting on Facebook is insufficiently far-Left, Facebook shadow-bans that posting to reduce its accessibility and hit-count. Worse, if users share the insufficiently Communistic posting, Facebook invariably attaches Correctiv’s commentary, together with a link so that readers can donate to Correctiv, giving it what the Court considered to be a further unreasonable commercial advantage.

In the first instance, the Mannheim Regional Court had ruled in favor of Correctiv. The Court of Appeal has now overturned the ruling. Correctiv is no longer allowed to mark the Tichy’s article with the words “No: they are not ‘500 scientists’: claims partly false”. The Court also ordered the bogus reference to “fact-checking” to be removed when the article is shared. If Facebook flouts the Court’s ruling, it faces an administrative fine of up to 250,000 euros or up to two years in prison.

The Karlsruhe Court’s ratio decidendi is that the link to the soi-disant “fact-check” is misleading. Correctiv’s fact-faking had overwhelmingly concentrated on the alleged errors in the open letter rather than to Tichy’s reporting.

Joachim Steinhöfel, who represented Tichy’s insight, described the Appeal Court’s judgment as a victory for freedom of opinion: “The fundamental question for decision by the Court was who should decide what is right and wrong in an open society. This case marks the beginning of the end of Facebook’s current ‘fact-checking’ system.”

However, the Court stressed that it had not decided on “the legality of fact-checks on Facebook in general”.

Commenting on the ruling, Correctiv said that the Court had only found its “fact-check” on the Tichy’s article misleading: “Therefore, the Court has questioned neither the Facebook fact-checking system nor our activities in general. Now we are waiting for the full judgment.Will then decide whether and how the proceedings will continue. Regardless, we will continue our work against fake news unabated.”

Meanwhile, Naomi Seibt’s lawyer has written to Reuters to insist upon corrections to a misleading “fact-check” article about her case against the State Media Authority in North-Rhine Westphalia, which had ordered her to take down two of her climate videos or face fines totaling $2640 or up to 14 days’ in prison in default.

Reuters had repeated the Authority’s press statement to the effect that it had not levied a fine on Naomi. In fact its “administrative act” – effectively a judgment issued by it in a case to which it is a party and without hearing Naomi’s side of the case – had menaced her with fines of 1000 euros plus 200 euros costs for each video unless she took the videos down.

Reuters had also said Naomi had not replied to its request for comment, but Naomi did not recall having received any such request. Finally, Reuters had said Naomi had been unable to answer the Authority’s allegations, when in fact she is able to answer them and is appealing against the Authority’s self-judgment.

214 thoughts on “Judge finds fact-faking Facebook “fact-check” false

    • Facebook faces a fine of up to 250,000 euros….

      they spend that on pencils they don’t need…this is no kick at all…not even a hiccup

      • This is indeed no kick at all. As Correctiv says: “Regardless, we will continue our work against fake news unabated.”.

        All the judgement orders is that one particular sentence must not be used. Big deal. It takes a long time and a lot of effort to get a judgement in court. In the meantime, any amount of reasonable material is shoved out of sight by the social media companies. It would be nice to think that this judgement gives a boost for free speech, but the reality is that it hasn’t made any noticeable difference.

        • The “Correctiv” will never stop in its quest to interfere in politics. They hide under a cloak of Journalism, but in reality when we look at who funds them, and their Ruhr and in particular Essen based masters, The Brost, then we know it isn’t about Honest and Fair News Reporting withThe “Correctiv”. To me the name itself sounds a bit like some seedy, rubber clad, S&M organisation. The Journalism Funding Forum warned as long ago as 2017 about their “fact checking” activities, and some Judge isn’t going to stop them with this judgement.

          JFF reported these facts (abridged – long spiel):

          Correctiv was founded in 2014, modelled on the US non-profit newsroom ProPublica. The not-for-profit
          investigative journalism bureau publishes its content in collaboration with established (like-minded) media outlets (large and
          small newspapers, magazines, radio and television channels), and on their own website. Correctiv is breaking
          new ground with regard to both its investigations and its publication model. The editorial staff actively involve
          readers in research efforts, for example in one investigation documenting cancelled school lessons in Dortmund.

          Correctiv is run by a non-profit limited liability company. The bureau has about 25 permanent employees in
          the Berlin and Essen offices, as well as freelance reporters. In Essen, the regional spin-off “Correctiv Ruhr” is
          produced. They are supported by an ethics and a supervisory board.

          The initial financial backer was the Essen-based Brost Foundation, which stumped up €3m for Correctiv in
          its first three years. The bureau makes great efforts to secure further financial support. They have successfully
          obtained many contributions from organisations including the Adessium Foundation, the Schöpflin Foundation,
          Deutsche Bank, the LfM Foundation for Local Journalism Vor Ort NRW, the Rudolf Augstein Foundation and
          the Open Society Foundation (George Soros).

          A further financial backbone for Correctiv is supposed eventually to come from building a supporters community.
          Currently, around 2,500 people have signed up as community members and are long-term donors, providing
          at least €120 a year (students from €60). Correctiv only managed to secure around half of the 5,000 members it had originally intended to by the end of 2015.21 To strengthen this community, Correctiv is not only very
          active on social media, but also takes pains to ensure extensive offline contact. For example, Correctiv runs a
          public education programme on spreading awareness about freedom of information rights.
          This programme was formally institutionalised with the founding of Reporterfabrik (reporters factory) in
          2017. In Autumn 2017, the organisation held an event called Campfire Festival for Journalism and New

          Correctiv’s work has made it clear that non-profit media projects are subject to particular scrutiny, and that
          the independence with which these projects advertise themselves sets the bar very high. This has become
          apparent on multiple occasions in recent months. For example, Correctiv attracted criticism for its cooperation
          with Facebook on checking intentionally-published Fake News articles.

          Their are massive Tax advantages for Foundations like The Brost, Bill & Melinda Gates, Open Society, and others in funding dubious operations like “The Correctiv”, and indeed Zuckerburg himself indulges in funding “Independent Jurnalists” at “small newspapers” across the Globe, including in Germany, NRW, Ruhr, and Essen (guess who?).

          Bah !

    • I thought Zuckerberg said he doesn’t believe in filtering content on FB, in distancing himself from Twitter.

  1. My country of birth has an unfortunate history of using harsh administrative tools to silence dissent. Those knuckleheads really haven’t learned much. They probably think this okay since it’s being done for the right reasons. Whatever. We fight on.

    • > My country of birth has an unfortunate history of using harsh administrative tools to silence dissent.

      Narrows it down to about 160 nations.

    • “They probably think this okay since it’s being done for the right reasons.”

      The whole law can be summarised as these two laws, one law for the goodies and one for the baddies:

      Any baddie who does anything that a reasonable goodie would consider naughty, commits an offence.

      Nothing that a goodie does, even if it would be an offence if a baddie did it, is an offence.

      • One law for those who make the laws and another one completely for those who don’t. And enforcement for the second group.

  2. If leftards didn’t have double standards they wouldn’t have any at all, as the Judge pointed out.

  3. “The “research” network Correctiv, which Facebook uses to ensure that non-Communist content is censored…”

    non-communist content?
    Maybe they should censor “communist content”.

    Just sayin…

    – JPP

    • His Lordship is, I believe, indulging in a wee bit of editorial license. Not to say I disagree, of course.

        • If I have seen the Rule, my memory fails me. As painful as it may be to explain what is no doubt a witty remark, would his Lordship nevertheless indulge me?

  4. > If Facebook flouts the Court’s ruling, it faces an administrative fine of up to 250,000 euros or up to two years in prison.


      • Interesting how Nick’s panties only get in a wad when someone on his side is being threatened by the courts.

        Regardless, as usual, Nick has nothing whatever to say regarding the meat of the controversy.

        • No, I note the hypocrisy of celebrating a threat of two years imprisonment for fact checking as a triumph of free speech.

          I don’t think courts anywhere should be penalising non-libellous speech.

          • Included in the ruling

            “However, the court emphasized that the appeals process did not decide “the legality of fact checks on Facebook in general”.”

          • Nick, you recently argued that Naomi Seibt was not issued actually issued a fine when she was threatened with same.

            Now you are complaining of courts penalising non-libellous speech when imprisonment may be imposed on default of the court order.

            Both cases have implied threat, depending on the future actions of the person/organisation yet you have differing opinions for each.

          • “you have differing opinions for each”
            No. I simply don’t believe Lord M’s account of the letters sent to Naomi. Especially when he won’t produce them.

          • “…No. I simply don’t believe Lord M’s account of the letters sent to Naomi. Especially when he won’t produce them…”

            Imagine if he took every avenue to prevent them from being released, even though they should be accessible under FOIA or comparable. How skeptical would you be then?

          • You don’t believe in free speech. How can you comment on it? It’s gonna be real funny watching you after section 230 is gone.

          • Nick: “No, I note the hypocrisy of celebrating a threat of two years imprisonment for fact checking…”

            You didn’t understand. The threat is for a MISUSE of fact-checking, which instead of defending people from lies, what it does is spread falsehoods that actually PREVENT freedom of expression.

            But you already know that, don’t you?

          • OK, Nick

            The Grundgesetz fűr die Bundesrepublik Deutschland celebrates free speech like our Constitution does. Although recently there have been massive assaults on free speech rights in both countries. The FB case indicates that the German courts will apply their Constitution to private companies, as well as governmental agencies.

            What about Naomi’s anti-feee speech punishments for not supporting climate hysteria? This is clearly a case which violates the Grundgesetz.

          • Though its clear however, that The Correctiv were not merely “fact checking”, but selectively choosing victims dependant upon perceived political stance. Then constructing fraudulent narratives, in order to justify unwarranted censorship in a wholly unacceptable fashion. This isn’t about penalising “non-libellous” speech, but about ensuring that editorialised journals such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube; cannot operate disguised as free speech forums, and shelter behind public liability exceptions designed for genuine free speech forums, when the clearly and publicly collude to shadow-ban, edit, alter, and expunge selected persons whose views they do not like, based upon political criteria.

          • Once again, Nick completely ignores the argument made.
            Where are the posts where Nick is complaining about the censorship of articles that he disagrees with?

      • Everything has its consequences, including freedom.
        As an aside, WUWT I think has been brilliant at defending the right to express thoughts and opinions. I remember the support Mr. Mosher got here, when there were some calling for him to be silenced on a comments thread. Rightly so.
        ‘I may not agree with a word you say, but I’ll defend to the death, your right to say it’

        Debate has two sides.

    • Rob
      Who would serve the time in prison? I suspect that it would be difficult to extradite any of the US management team, and all the junior management would claim they had no authority to countermand their superiors. So, that seems to be an idle threat.

  5. Reuters had also said Naomi had not replied to its request for comment, but Naomi did not recall having received any such request.

    Ther’s no obligation to answer to media requests 😀

    • It’s a standard dirty trick to make someone look ‘guilty’ by virtue of the fact that they supposedly would not defend the allegations; ‘accidentally’ use an old email address, ask for a response in the middle of the night 2 minutes before publication, that sort of thing!

      • Or file it in a locked filing cabinet, in a locked room in the basement of a building on Mars.

    • Krishna: Ther’s no obligation to answer to media requests

      Absolutely true. It is also true that it is very bad to lie and pretend that someone didn’t want to answer a question that you didn’t even ask.

  6. Deutsche Welle is another German media/propaganda outfit that is drunk on the climate Kool-Aid.

    • Of course DW is the German equivalent to the Britisch BBC. Official State Propaganda channel, and they do have their own political slant. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, many of the staff of the former East German RBI joined DW, and started to impose their own particular totalitarian “water melon” views. What more might we expect, that they are a bit like the Englischer Curate’s Egg, because they are good only in some parts.

  7. Does anyone read the phrase “fact-check” and not translate this immediately to “lies, BS, and other leftard crap”?

    Impressionable kids, I guess.

    • Mother Jones? Snopes? IngSoc? Yet there must be many “Winston Smith” fact checkers, who do so under duress, like in the prophetic dystopian classic of the 1984. Victims made to operate as fearful puppets.
      Yet Eric Blair aka George Orwell’s lesser known book “Animal Farm” was required reading at mine own senior school, and as a political critique is unparalleled perhaps, because the young child might read it as an amusing fantasy novel, yet in later life come to realise who the characters really represent, as indeed I did. The Road to Wigan Pier, Down and Out in Paris and London, I’d never had even thought to read those books, had I not read the Animal Farm.

  8. Mockton’s support for Naomi is vigorous (there’s a “but” coming) and helpful, but he waters down his points by assuming climate-crisis-believers are Communist, or even left-wing.

    Evidence shows conclusively that the effect, on all life, from using fossils fuels for our energy is a slightly beneficial one – nothing else.

    A belief in any -ism is compatible with how Naomi, Moncton and I think on the subject.

    • Graham
      You make a valid point. People of all political / ethnic and religious belief believe the climate CO2 narrative. It is one of central control for both the left and right, and governments failing to follow this narrative can be globally ostracized. Therefore it is easier to join the narrative as there are greater domestic battles to fight.

      An example of this is when Simon Bridges took over the leadership of the National Party in New Zealand he adopted the Climate / CO2 narrative for the sole purpose of acceptance to boost his personal ratings (= acceptance) and one less difference to the Labor party.

      To stand alone against this tide of global media support appears futile to the bureaucrats, and even Donald Trump appears to have dropped the ball on this issue.

      Christopher Monckton, are you suggesting that your own Prime Minister is communist / socialist or other similar descriptive. The CO2 narrative is one of attaining global central control, and is too large and pervasive for individual states to fight, be they left or right.

      • Leaders of Western Democracies, are not able to act like dictators of Banana Republics, or Communist Oligarchs though. Both Trump and Johnston have relied upon so called experts who had bad intentions or were actually ignorant “rent seekers”. Again both Trump and Johnston hampered by prior legislation put in place by “green” predecessors, and in a democracy, such bad Law does take considerable effort and time to change.

        First the majority of Public opinion must change, else political change would not be lasting in any case. In the case of the British, they have their own bad Law, The Climate Change Act of failed PM Gordoom Brown, no scientist he, but he left the drafting of that suicidal Law to the halfwitted Fabian Ed Miliband, and being seduced by “Baroness” Bryony Worthington, simply acquiesced and installed the fake “Lord” Deben (Head Honcho of Globe International) as Britain’s Climate Supremo.

        Again the “Lord” Gummer of Deben installed the Al Gore acolyte, Jim Shea as his “science” advisor, and Shea appointed fake “Lord” Professor Krebs as his mentor in return. Prof Krebs takes advice in turn from a whole host of Carbon Alarmists at Grantham funded “laboratories”, and they rely upon the “researches” of the coterie of codswallop at Edinburgh University. Principally the giant boondoggle set up by the Professor of “Carbon Capture and Storage”, Stuart Haszeldine. He and his erstwhile accomplice, Mr. Fatosh Gozalpour, set up that hokum project when they both were working in North Sea oil extraction projects, and official advisors to British Government, on the matter of “Enhanced Oil Recovery”.

        The oil company they both worked for at the time were using CO2 pumped down bore holes (and burning valuable fuels especially to get that CO2), in order to recover more gas and oil from the strata (a tried and tested technique). They wanted to get the CO2 for free from power station chimneys, or at least have the British Government force Electricity Generators (and the hard pressed industrial and domestic consumers) to pay for this so called “Carbon Sequestration”. …. and so this giant boondoggle was born in what they now like to call “The Carbon Glen” at Edinburgh University, and this FRAUD was spread all across the entire World.

        “Professor” Haszeldine’s hokum teachings, and bogus degrees handed out to hapless dupes, are headquartered in the Edinburgh University School of Carbon Studies, which occupies the former premises of the School of Restorative Dentistry (Now Closed Down) in the Capital City of Scotland. Scottish residents, incidentally, have possibly the worst cared for teeth in Europe. I wonder why?


    • “Believers” are one thing. They may believe from ignorance.

      “Leaders” are another thing. They exploit the believers’ ignorance to further their own ideology (or simply to plump up their bank account).

      Every leader in the climate “crisis” scam is an ideologist, or a con artist, or both.

      (Note – we don’t have the leaders here at WUWT. We do have some very stubborn followers hanging around here.)

    • Graham, while it’s true that one does not have to be a leftist/communist to believe in climate alarmism, the fact remains that the vast majority of climate alarmist narrative comes from those who are far-leftist/communist. Just because there are a few useful idiots who aren’t leftist in the masses who buy into it, doesn’t mean that the source they bought in to it from isn’t very much on the left end of the political spectrum.

    • I suppose, in theory, you could put everyone who works for Facebook in prison. That would be overkill, imo, so in practice you’d more likely put the company leadership in prison (IE CEO Zuckerberg and possibly several VPs.) But as it’s an “or” not an “and”, the most likely action is to insist on the fine in cases where inprisonment is impractical.

  9. Calling Facebook censorship “communist” is really too kind m’lord. Stalinist is closer to the reality.

  10. THat’s a much clearer statement on Naomi, thanks. This only has to get to court where the right to express the facts to challenge the unprovable or false assertions of authority are actually well demonstrated by the evidence, so the damage to the climate racket will be amplified many times.

    e.g. facts and the absolute right to express them become important, so more people check for themselves.

  11. Today:

    Mark Zuckerberg Says Social Media Giants Shouldn’t Be In Position To Fact-Check Users

    FCC Commissioner on Trump social media crackdown: companies should leave ‘speech police business’

  12. Well I don’t know how German or EU works, but here in the US the social media companies have enjoyed a shielding from lawsuit, but now they are absuing that shielding granted by Congress.

    It’s called Section 230 and it lives inside the Communications Decency Act of 1996, and it gives websites broad legal immunity: With some exceptions, online platforms can’t be sued for something posted by a user — and that remains true even if they act a little like publishers, by moderating posts or setting specific standards.

    So but now with political correctness run amok on the Left and the Cancel Culture running to shutdown any dissenting opinions, they are censoring twitter posts, Facebook post, and YouTube videos. Google is skewing search results to politically favored sites.

    They have immunity, but that could change if they keep censoring conservative views and views skeptical of the climate change scam.

  13. This basically boils down to who is fact checking the fact checkers? It is a good ruling.

      • No, but just because Reuters factcheck something does not mean it is true, as you naively seem to believe

          • Funny how Nick defends the workings of the law, but only so long as those who he disagrees with are getting ground up by it.

          • Nick,
            From here on out, all comments you make on social media will have a fact check link to an exact opposite opinion. You will be known as a 100% liar.

            You will get a judge to defend you and then claim he’s just asserting his authority and that’s not fair?

            Why do you bother making comments that are so blatantly self-serving?

          • ‘Why do you bother making comments that are so blatantly self-serving?’

            I think this is a question that answers itself.

          • “From here on out, all comments you make on social media will have a fact check link”
            MarkW provides that service here. It’s called disputing. It happens.

          • Nick Stokes; Assuming you are talking about Naomi I am not sure I agree with your view that its about the use of legal enforcement in competing claims of fact. I think its far more about deliberate calculated intimidation and threatening of a 19 year old girl to suppress her right of free speech. Unless you claim that the published transcripts of the videos are false I find it next to impossible to see how either of them can be even vaguely argued to infringe the german law as stated. As far as I know it is an offence to press charges (or issue a legal demand with menaces) without reasonable grounds and it would seem to me the only rational reason for doing so would be to intimidate.

  14. “Now a judge has found Facebook’s fact-faking “fact-check” false and has ordered it to be taken down, on pain of a fine of up to 250,000-euro fine or up to two years’ imprisonment in default.”

    It seems that German law is sometimes popular here, sometimes not.

    “Joachim Steinhöfel, who represented Tichy’s insight, described the Appeal Court’s judgment as a victory for freedom of opinion”

    So what about Correctiv’s freedom of opinion? Or Facebook’s? They are being threatened with a fine for expressing an opinion. Tichy was merely subject to a disagreeable opinion.

    But as usual, there are no links offerred where we could check for ourselves on what happened. Here is Die Welt.

    • Correctiv has freedom of opinion.

      The difference between stating an opinion as such, and stating something as a fact makes a world of difference.

      When tobacco executives testified before Congress, they carefully stated that they did not believe that nicotine is addictive. They were investigated for perjury but, as far as I can tell, they were not even charged, let alone convicted. They made it very clear that they were expressing opinions rather than reciting facts.

      From CM’s article above:

      Tichy’s sued Facebook, saying that Correctiv’s supposed “fact-check” was merely an expression of opinion …

      Opinions and facts aren’t the same and representing your opinions as facts can actually lead to serious jail time or to civil liability. Just ask the tobacco executives and their lawyers.

      • “The difference between stating an opinion as such, and stating something as a fact makes a world of difference.”

        Is that a fact or an opinion?
        Tichy stated as a fact that “500 scientists said…”. Correctiv said, as a fact, that they weren’t all scientists. Why is one OK and the other not? Who should be fined?

        • Correctiv has established themselves, with the connivance of Facebook, as impartial arbiters of fact, not merely purveyors of opinion. They make a claim which the court has found to be false. Deal with it.

          • The Die Welt story – after translation gave some deeper background
            “Tichy” complained. According to the magazine, the assessment of “corrective” is not a fact check, but an evaluation. In addition, the special status of the research network as Facebook’s fact checker is unfair competition.
            The result was specific to the facts of this case , not to the legality of FB specially authorised ‘Fact checkers’
            But it does throw in doubt the whole absurdity of Facebook saying it ‘doesnt factcheck’, but authorizes others to do its dirty work for free.

          • As usual, Nick’s goal is not to actually argue the merits of the case, he just wants to muddy the water and thus earn his daily stipend.

        • My question above was obsolete, you didn’t understand the text of “Die Welt” 😀
          Tichy wrote an article about the open letter, but didn’t write the open letter, as “fact-checked” by Correctiv. You see the difference ?

        • It’s a fact. Have a chat with a lawyer. Actually, a quick google would show how keen people were to have the tobacco executives charged with perjury. Why didn’t it happen? It didn’t happen because people are entitled to express their opinions no matter how stupid they are … as long as they are framed as opinions. Can you find any evidence to the contrary?

          • Sometimes it’s clear.

            “I think that Joe is a jerk,” is an opinion. It’s not a polite opinion, but it is an opinion nonetheless. But “Joe stole $1,000 from his employer” is a statement of fact. If that statement isn’t true, it is defamatory. That is a false statement that clearly can cause injury to Joe. It could get him fired. link

          • “Sometimes it’s clear.”
            No, that is a defamation issue. Neither that nor perjury was the subject of this court action. This is the judicial penalisation of unsworn, non-defamatory assertion of facts.

          • … non-defamatory …

            Having a soi-disant “fact checker” state that your facts are wrong is quite damaging. The truth is usually a defense but when the soi-disant “fact checker’s” facts do not rise above opinion (although they are implied to be facts) that defense is unavailable.

        • It was actually widely stated as 500 scientists AND professionals/qualified commentators.



          Whereas this:


          Turned out to be Prof. M.Mouse and 10,999 1st year Uni students and Fridays For Future Primary school activist (well almost) .

        • “The difference between stating an opinion as such, and stating something as a fact makes a world of difference.”

          Some restaurant reviewers have found this to be true much to their cost.

          The difference between saying/writing…”This food is rubbish”…compared with saying/writing …”I believe that this food is rubbish”…can be a lot of dollars

        • Nick Stokes; going back to Naomi for a moment, I cannot find any dispute that NRW did indeed write to Naomi requesting that she take down 2 videos or suffer a fine or imprisonment. So what is Naomi to do? If she takes down the videos she has in effect been banned from social media. If she does not take them down she (according to the letter) will be fined or imprisoned. Unless she assumes NRW is bluffing and a 19 year old girl is extremely unlikely to assume the government is issuing empty threats, all she has is the choice of being banned or fined. Maybe the claim should have been Naomi has been banned OR fined instead of banned AND fined. Would such a change make everything OK? Maybe in a purist sense one could argue the claim is exaggerated but in essence (other than tense) is it really much of an exaggeration?

          • Michael
            ” I cannot find any dispute that NRW did indeed write to Naomi requesting that she take down 2 videos or suffer a fine or imprisonment.”

            Read my comments. I see no evidence that they said she would suffer a fine or imprisonment. They didn’t say so in the Reuters reporting. Again, we aren’t allowed to see the letters.

            I also very much doubt that they have the authority to impose such penalties by fiat. They would have to go to court, which would make the decision about penalty, if any.

        • Nick; you and I communicated privately some years ago and while I did not agree with your views I was very favourably impressed by your rationality and scientific approach but your comments here disappoint me. I assure you I have not just read your posts but also considered them very carefully. Lets just look at what NRW via Reuters did and did not say.

          Firstly they did not deny they had written to Naomi nor did they say that such communication was NOT in response to her utube videos. Such tacit acceptance of the claim is I believe grounds to assume that this much is correct.

          They then go on to say they have not fined Naomi. Accepted as true, indeed Lord Monckton has admitted that (at least up to this point) this is the case. But the NRW does not say that fines are not being considered for the future. If that was not on the cards why not defuse the situation completely by stating it.

          They then go on to state that they gave Naomi a chance to reply but that she did not do so. If a government writes to an individual regarding their utube activity and give that person a “right to reply” what does it mean? When a government talks about a right to reply it means they are asking for a defence. That means they believe Naomi’s actions justify asking for a defence. What act other than breach of a law would a government consider needs a formal defence and why would a government get involved if some sort of punishment was not on the cards? If this is not the case I would have expected the NRW to defuse the issue by stating words to the effect that no illegality is involved. Do you really believe a government would engage in meaningless banter with a 19 year old girl.

          If it is just idle banter or polite criticism why would Naomi not just ignore it. If she (and Lord Monckton) chose to “make a federal case of it” why would NRW not simply state “hey it was just a polite request no further action is contemplated”?

          As to your point that the government could not impose a fine by fiat, really!!! Look around, Daniel Andrew has been doing exactly that for the last 3 months. Found outside your home without reasonable excuse and police impose a $1652 fine on the spot. Is that not a fine by fiat. Sure you can contest it in court but the threat is that if you do it could become a $15,000 fine. That is a pretty big threat, how many people would risk it? Then again, does it really make any difference whether the threat is an on the spot fine of $2400 euro or “we will prosecute you in court with possible outcomes of ………..”. Personally I would find the latter even more intimidating.

          No I think even the Reuters debunk makes it clear NRW took exception to Naomi’s utube videos and applied some sort of pressure on her to remove them. You are right, we only have Lord Monckton’s word that the explicit threat was fine or imprisonment but then again what other pressure can a government impose and is it more or less threatening than a fine or imprisonment? If the videos as are innocuous as the transcript suggests do you think such an action is justified? Are you really suggesting the NRW did nothing and this is all a concocted storm in a teacup?

          • Michael
            “Look around, Daniel Andrew has been doing exactly that for the last 3 months.”
            That was under state of emergency legislation.

            “do you think such an action is justified? Are you really suggesting the NRW did nothing and this is all a concocted storm in a teacup?”
            I don’t think legal enforcement is justified here. I did outline elsewhere what I think may have happened. It is pretty clear NRW received a complaint, and either from the complainant or elsewhere felt obliged to do something about it, since it does seem to breach the law. So they asked her to take them down. That is doing something.

            Again, without seeing the letters, that is just speculation. But remember, the story has gone from
            “Without a hearing, German officials have fined her…”
            to threatened with fines of varying amount
            to an “administrative act”.
            Who knows?

    • As usual, Nick has to lie about what others have been saying.
      In Naomi’s case, the administrative agency has been ignoring the law.
      In this case, the judge is actually following the law.

      As usual, Nick’s umbrage is based on whether he agrees with the person being fined.

      • Monckton blurts, “Someone needs to tell the paid troll jack dale it to whine.” What to try that in English? I do not comprehend gibbersish.

        BTW – thanks for recognizing that my posts, unlike yours, have some value. However, I post without any remuneration.

          • Thanks for proving you are aliterate. You missed the last sentence of my post.

            “However, I post without any remuneration.”

          • Ok, so Fred should have let off the “paid” part. Thanks, Jack, for admitting you are a troll. Not that your admission was necessary, as it’s obvious to see for all who read your blatherrings of bile

          • I see you also speak gibberish.

            “No one recognizes anything what find the way via your fingers in your keyboard in our oppressed eyes.”

          • I’ll better remain silent in concern of what you are writing without any substance…
            I’ll even believe you write without remuneration, because it must be an idiot to pay such BS 😀

          • Jack Dale May 28, 2020 at 1:08 pm
            Monckton blurts, “Someone needs to tell the paid troll jack dale it to whine.” What to try that in English? I do not comprehend gibbersish.

            BTW – thanks for recognizing that my posts, unlike yours, have some value. However, I post without any remuneration

            OK Jack, Pot or Kettle

        • You should be very careful about criticizing other peoples spelling or grammar. Because invariably your criticism can turn around and bite you.

          “What to try that in English”, should be “Want to try that in English”. Luckily I understand gibberish when spoken by people that speak gibberish.

          Climate Heretic

        • Dale shouldn’t that be, “I gather you are [a] Monckton wannabe.”? You now have both feet in it!

          • Dale
            It wasn’t much of a contest.

            I give most people a pass. However, you deserved special attention because it was you who initially made fun of someone based on simple mistakes, as though you were so superior. I’m just pointing out that you have to put your pants on one leg at a time, just like everyone else who doesn’t have super powers.

    • It really is fascinating how the far left get so bent out of shape whenever they get accurately labeled.

      • You really need to study your history.


        Red-baiting is the act of accusing, denouncing, attacking or persecuting an individual or group as communist, socialist, or anarchist, or sympathetic toward communism, socialism, or anarchism. The word “red” in “red-baiting” is derived from the red flag signifying radical left-wing politics. In the United States the term “red-baiting” dates from at least 1927. In 1928, black-listing by the Daughters of the American Revolution was characterized as a ‘red-baiting relic’. It is a term commonly used in the United States, and in United States history, red-baiting is most often associated with McCarthyism, which originated in the two historic Red Scare periods of the 1920s and 1950s. In the 21st century, red-baiting does not have quite the same effect it previously did due to the fall of Soviet-style Communism, but some pundits have argued that notable events in current American politics indicates a resurgence of red-baiting consistent with the 1950s.”


        • Tell that to the survivors of the `Gulags and the Cultural Revolution. I’m sure they’ll be sympathetic.

          • Tell that to those who were persecuted by McCarthy.

            In the early 1950s, American leaders repeatedly told the public that they should be fearful of subversive Communist influence in their lives. Communists could be lurking anywhere, using their positions as school teachers, college professors, labor organizers, artists, or journalists to aid the program of world Communist domination. This paranoia about the internal Communist threat—what we call the Red Scare—reached a fever pitch between 1950 and 1954, when Senator Joe McCarthy of Wisconsin, a right-wing Republican, launched a series of highly publicized probes into alleged Communist penetration of the State Department, the White House, the Treasury, and even the US Army. During Eisenhower’s first two years in office, McCarthy’s shrieking denunciations and fear-mongering created a climate of fear and suspicion across the country. No one dared tangle with McCarthy for fear of being labeled disloyal.


          • Chip’n’Dale: are you really equating the treatment of Alger Hiss and other Communist spies by McCarthy with the beatings, shootings and starvation of millions of people in Russia and China?

          • Does the name Dalton Trumbo mean anything to you. Do you know what a “blacklist” is? McCarthy was responsible the some of the worst abuse of power.

            Condoning red-baiting is condoning the abuse of power.

          • The false equivalency is yours entirely. “Red-baiting” =/= Communist mass-murder.

          • Jack Dale, the only problem with bringing up McCarthy, is that for the most part, McCarthy was right.

          • For the most part, the “red baiting” was justified.
            There were communists in the US government.
            As to black listing, look at how many jobs openly conservative people have in Hollywood.

    • It blows my mind that anyone aware of the carnage created by communist regimes can, in any way, condone communism.

      ‘Communist’ should be just as repugnant as N__i.

      CM’s only sin is that he tends sometimes toward the Rabelaisian. On the other hand, if he were more subtle, a bunch of folks wouldn’t get the point. 🙂

      • My undergrad major was 20th century history I am well aware of the atrocities of Stalin, Mao, the Khmer Rouge, etc.. My politics mirror that of Orwell, I am opposed to totalitarianism in all forms.

        I am also aware the of the abuse of power demonstrated in the 1950’s by McCarthy and Cohn.

        Monckton has thrown the “Communist” epithet at me ever time we meet in a forum. Yes, I take offense.

        • Yes Jack; being labelled and denigrated for ones views is indeed repugnant. So how than should Naomi feel when she is labelled a white supremacist, a supporter white genocide. When her extremely respectful and honest utube videos are met with a demand that they be taken down under threat of a fine whereas a far far more extreme young lady of similar age is lauded and pampered simply because she represents the other side. You don’t think her videos are respectful? – she states I don’t want you to believe me unconditionally, I want you to think. Compare that with “I want to make you panic” and a 15 year old girl hurling insults to the worlds top politicians – some respect for the office at least if not for the incumbent.

          You want to be treated respectfully, please also be sensitive to other peoples similar wishes especially others who are far more vulnerable than you yet still burdened with a conscience to speak out against what they see as wrong in our society.

        • Indeed. Falsely accusing someone of being a Communist should be the most serious defamation possible.

          • Last century, during the Vichy French regime of the Nazis, a Paris Taxi Driver was arrested by the Police and prosecuted, because whilst in an argument he called a fellow cabbie a Dirty MP; such was the severity of the perceived insult (implying that he was a National Socialist sympathiser).

        • You are opposed to all forms of totalitarianism, except those run by yourself and your friends.

          • Jordan Peterson points out that every person is capable of every kind of evil that humans have ever inflicted on humans. link It seems to me that the reason the left tends toward totalitarianism is that they, collectively, lack that simple understanding.

            The realization that one has the capability for great evil is necessary to become a fully developed human being.

            A priest once told me that merely asserting that one did not beat up on people got no respect from him. Respect comes to someone who can beat up on others but refrains from doing so.

            Peterson translates “the meek shall inherit the Earth” as, “Those with swords, and know how to use them, but keep them sheathed shall inherit the Earth.” It’s not an unreasonable translation. link Again, I think that wisdom is lost on the majority of those on the left.

        • Jack,

          How many people died as a result of “the abuse of power demonstrated in the 1950’s by McCarthy and Cohn?” (Your words)

          How many people died as a direct result of programs forced on a populace with no means of defense by Stalin, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot and the other communist tyrants?

          Using the criteria of human life, there is simply no comparison between McCarthy and the Communist Tyrants.

          • Which happened in the “land of the free”?

            In the end, McCarthy was censured. In the land of the free, justice prevails more often than not.

            For those of you who think McCarthy was right … he was right about many things. The things he got wrong wrecked peoples’ lives.

  15. Meanwhile:

    “A federal appeals court is rejecting claims that tech companies like Facebook, Google, Twitter and Apple have conspired to suppress conservative viewpoints on their platforms.

    A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on Wednesday affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit that was filed by the conservative legal organization Freedom Watch and far-right activist Laura Loomer. Freedom Watch and Loomer alleged that the Silicon Valley giants were coordinating together to silence conservative viewpoints and that they were violating the First Amendment and antitrust policies.

    “The district court dismissed the complaint, holding that Freedom Watch had standing to sue but failed to allege colorable legal claims,” the judges wrote in their decision. “On appeal, we reach the same conclusion.””


    • The relevant term being “D.C Circuit”, surely the home of the “Deep State” !



    Back in 1984, Wendy’s launched a wonderful series of commercials called “WHERE’S THE BEEF?”.

    About the same time, the IPCC launched its fake scary story about catastrophic manmade global warming, aka CAGW, aka dangerous chaotic climate change, aka blah blah blah…

    Since then, competent climate scientists have challenged that fraudulent story, and have provided literally dozens of credible facts that disprove that overheated hypothesis.

    However, that scientific debate did not happen, because the hotheads of global warming refused to debate – they had no credible arguments – they had nothing, and they knew it.

    Instead, they used Goebbels/Alinsky propaganda tactics to slander and persecute the honest scientists who challenged them – competent scientists who knew that climate change was primarily natural.

    Why did this debacle happen? Because the very-scary global warming story was never about the climate. Global warming / climate change alarmism was always a false front for the far-left’s totalitarian political objectives – the drive to dictatorship. Remember that important fact then next time you hear anyone bleating about “saving the planet from climate change”.

    The ability to predict is the best objective measure of scientific and technical competence. Every very-scary prediction of runaway global warming and climate chaos made by the global warming alarmists has failed to materialize. They are so far-left they’ve never been right!

    So “WHERE’S THE BEEF? ”. The global warming fraudsters have been 100% wrong for decades and they knew it. Nobody should believe them about anything!

    Regards, Allan MacRae

    By Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng., September 20, 2019

    The following quotations by prominent leftists provide further support for these facts.

    “The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”
    Club of Rome, “The First Global Revolution”, by Alexander King and Bertrand Schneider, 1991

    “…one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth…”
    IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer, speaking in November 2010

    “We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
    Prof. Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, in the journal “Discover”

    “A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.”
    “Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”
    Dr. Paul Ehrlich, Anne Ehrlich, and Dr. John Holdren, Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment, 1970

    “The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key to unlock the New World Order.”
    former Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev, 1996

    “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
    Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme, Rio Climate Summit, 1992

    “The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing.”
    Christopher Manes, Earth First!

    “I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems.”
    John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

    “I must confess that I am tempted to ask for reincarnation as a particularly deadly virus.”
    Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, husband to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Foreword to If I Were an Animal (1987) by Fleur Cowles ISBN 978068806150

    “A global warming treaty [Kyoto] must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the [enhanced] greenhouse effect.”
    U.S. Deputy Assistant of State Richard Benedick, Rio Climate Summit, 1992

    “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
    Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment, Calgary Herald interview, 1988

    “We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”
    Timothy Wirth, former U.S. undersecretary of state for global issues, Rio Climate Summit, 1992

    “The goal now is a socialist, redistributionist society, which is nature’s proper steward and society’s only hope.”
    David Brower, first Executive Director of the Sierra Club, founder of Friends of the Earth

    The green extremists in Canada, the USA, Britain and the remaining democracies are saboteurs of our economies and enemies of democracy, whose true intent is to use the global warming smokescreen to destroy our prosperity and restrict our freedoms – by transforming our countries into socialist dictatorships.

    Radical green extremists have cost society trillions of dollars and many millions of lives. For example, the effective banning of DDT and radical green opposition to golden rice have blinded and killed tens of millions of children.

    Green energy and CO2 abatement schemes, driven by false fears of catastrophic global warming, have severely damaged the environment and squandered trillions of dollars of scarce global resources that should have been allocated to serve the real, immediate needs of humanity. Properly allocated, these wasted funds might have ended malaria and world hunger.

    The number of shattered lives caused by radical-green activism rivals the death tolls of the great killers of the 20th Century – Stalin, Hitler and Mao. Radical greens advocate similar extreme-left totalitarian policies and are indifferent to the resulting environmental damage and human suffering… … and if unchecked, radical environmentalism will cost us our freedom.

    • 573 pages of debate: https://www.aps.org/policy/statements/upload/climate-seminar-transcript.pdf

      Your use use of the logical fallacy of contextomy of rather obvious. Did you get them from c3headlines

      (also known as: fallacy of quoting out of context, quoting out of context)

      Description: Removing a passage from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning


      • Dale
        You said, “Your use use of the logical fallacy of contextomy ,b>ofrather obvious.” How about clarifying the gibberish!

      • Can you show where the context alters the meaning of the quotes given by Allan Macrae?

        These quotes are devastating as they reveal the true intentions of the people behind the environmental movement.

        • Let us start the the the Stephen Schneider quote.

          Here is the the paragraph from which it taken. I copied it from Judith Curry’s blog.

          “On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.”


          That last six words matter. I doubt Macrae has read the original. Like all of those who use it, they provide no citation.

          I suggest you read Curry’s blog post.

          I also suggest that you read Schneider’s response to the contextomy.


          Here is a an analysis by someone who almost fell for the misquote.


          • Thanks for proving my point! The last six words are merely a sop to his bad conscience. Schneider is absolutely explicit that he intends to lie to the public: “So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. ” Only in your mind is it possible to do this and still be honest.

          • You have a profound case of confirmation bias.

            Did you bother to read Curry’s blog?

    • Club of Rome, yes but don’t forget the “Friends of the Club of Rome” based in … Frankfurt, or is it in Switzerland now? Then there’s also the Club of Buda-Pest, and the Club of Madrid for failed and deselected (voted out of office) European Prime Ministers, Such as Blair, Brown, and Major of the Britisch, and the awful Baroso and Verhofstadt of EU infamy. Then there’s Anders Wijkman & Tallberg Foundation (who they? … but if you’re looking for the spider in his green web of pseudo-socialist deceit perhaps?).

    • The Club of Rome “quote” is especially egregious. Those words do not appear in the same paragraph, on the same page or even adjacent pages.

      The Edenhofer contextomy is in response to an interviewer’s question. It is clear the poster did not bother to read the interview.

      Posting this crap is clear evidence that the poster lacks any semblance of critical thinking skills; otherwise he would have made some attempt to verify what he posted.

  17. Facebook is classed as a utility and as such should not be fact checking. It should remain neutral.

  18. Farce Book Fake Check is analogous to empowering the wolves to fact check the sheep, before selecting a tasty one for dinner.

  19. Don’t see the point in repeatedly referring to Communism. Makes you sound like some old thing left over from the Cold War.

    • The communists are still with us. Not acknowledging their continued skullduggery would be ignoring reality and makes you sound like some old left over thing from the Cold War.

      • There is no “Right” or “Left”.
        There is only Right and Wrong.
        Ergo if you’re not right,
        then you must be wrong.
        So, “The Correctiv” are nihilist sadists,
        who will always be not-right in that sense.

  20. “Fact checkers” are invariably negativist left wingers incapable of rational thought. They can be found by the hundreds in any downtown bar. Mega rich who don’t like voters can find them by the hundreds, and they work cheap.

  21. Trump has put the social media platforms on notice:


    “President Donald Trump signed an executive order Thursday in the White House to defend free speech on social media and regulate social media companies for selectively censoring users.

    “We’re here today to defend free speech from one of the greatest dangers,” the president said, referring to the “unchecked power” wielded by social media companies in the United States.

    The president signed the order in the Oval Office on Thursday afternoon.

    “They’ve had unchecked power to censor restrict, edit shape hide alter virtually any form of communication between private citizens or large public audiences,” Trump said.

    The president criticized the growing monopoly of social media companies in America, vowing to act to change the regulatory framework for the companies.

    “There’s no precedent in American history for so small a number of corporations to control so large a sphere of interaction,” he said.

    Trump said the increasing editorial actions by social media to control the content on their platforms endangered their liability shield under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act as a neutral public platform.

    “The choices that Twitter makes, when it chooses to suppress, edit, blacklist, shadowban are editorial decisions, pure and simple, they are editorial decisions,” Trump said.

    The president accused the companies of political activism, calling it “inappropriate.”

    “What they choose to fact check and what they choose to ignore or promote is nothing more than a political activism group,” he said.”

    end excerpt

      • He of course can’t amend sec 230. The order will ask agencies to petition the FCC to ‘clarify ‘ section 230 so that the administration can issue guidelines to certain agencies about advertising on sites that violate the guidelines. Among other things…

      • “Among other things…”
        Yes. Not mentioned by Breitbart

        “The draft order also requires the Attorney General to establish a working group including state attorneys general that will examine the enforcement of state laws that prohibit online platforms from engaging in unfair and deceptive acts.

        The working group will also monitor or create watch-lists of users based on their interactions with content or other users.

        Free speech Trump style.

        • ‘Free speech Trump style.’

          I guess Nick missed the utter abuse of the ‘free press’ over the last several years – or is simply an apologist for it – probably the latter.

        • Haven’t seen that anywhere. Clearly there will be no watch list organized by government officials.

        • You’ll notice that the article didn’t reference any language in the draft that users would be creating watch lists of users. Not in there, and if it were it wouldn’t stand legal scrutiny. Clearly fact checking Trump but not Biden is editorializing on the part of Twitter and the President rightfully is putting the pressure on them to stop by legal means.
          I don’t know about you, but I don’t want them ‘fact checking’ anything. I’d rather read arguments that are readily available or debate someone like you on line then have some 25 year old in a cubicle in San Jose tell America what passes for fact.

          • “Clearly fact checking Trump but not Biden is editorializing on the part of Twitter and the President rightfully is putting the pressure on them to stop by legal means.”

            Well, Biden does very little tweeting, whereas Trump does a lot that is not very, well, factual. But why should it be illegal for Twitter to “editorialize”?

            Trump could find another platform.

          • Stokes
            You said, “Trump could find another platform.” If that principle were applied across the board, one could respond to complaints of discrimination by saying “They can find another neighborhood to live in.” or, find another job, or find another bus. Just because there may be an alternative to what is unequal treatment, it doesn’t make it acceptable.

          • But why should it be illegal for Twitter to “editorialize”?

            No one says it should be illegal, what they’re say is twitter needs to choose are they are platform with the protections that afford them (in which case no editorializing) or are the a publisher without the protections of being a platform (in which case they can editorialize all they want) they can’t be both. it’s one or the other, choose.

          • Trump could find another platform.

            Black person is not allowed in a restaurant

            Nick: He can find another restaurant

            Woman is passed over a promotion for a less qualified male.

            Nick: She can find another place to work

        • “…Free speech Trump style…”

          Some folks will believe anything they read so long as it suits their agenda, hate, paranoia, ignorance, stupidity, etc.

      • He’s clarifying Section 230, dear Nick.

        Did you read the EO? It states that it clarifies CDA Section 230.

    • Tom, From the same source: excerpt
      “U.S. Attorney General William Barr attended the event and said his office would prepare legislation to restrict social media companies from pressing their particular viewpoints on their platforms.

      “These companies grew because they held themselves out as public forums,” Barr said, adding, “Now that they’ve become these very powerful networks of eyeballs. They’ve now switched and they are using that market power to force particular viewpoints.”
      end excerpt

      Clearly, they are no longer acting as unfettered ‘public forums’ but are exercising capricious editorial and publishing controls. Bad socialists! No more cookies!

  22. Face Book et al should get out of the fact checking business. It’s arrogant, arbitrary and subject to abuse.

    • They are not fact checking. They have solicited opinions from a biased firm and capriciously touted them as ‘fact checking’. It’s no less than having concealed predators ‘fact check’ their selected prey.

      • I’ll bet not a single one of them fact-checked anything that came out of the Obama White House, especially when it came to climate change statements.

      • Three wolves and a sheep, deciding by consensus (with “fact checking”), what to have for dinner?

  23. If one good thing comes from this, it is that Naomi has learnt first-hand about those on the other side and what they are capable of.

  24. Lord Monckton is protecting Naomi Seibt in a way that I can’t, Nick Stokes can’t, other WUWT posters can’t, and even Anthony can’t.
    I’m sure the German Government is listening, although they won’t acknowledge it.

    I applaud him for that !

    – JPP

    • Amen to that!!!! To those who so insensitively and even callously debate the right and wrongs of this issue, why not first spend 5 seconds imagining how a 19 year old girl must feel when massive public forums accuse her of being a white supremacist and supporting white genocide, or even a long haired activist (hint, most young ladies have long hair). When her respectful and honest opinions are met with demands to withdraw them under threat of fines or imprisonment. Ohh I hear you declaim, if she cant stand the heat get out of the kitchen? If so consider that such a statement amounts to saying that acceptable responses to voicing opinions you disagree with is to publicly slander, social isolation, fines, imprisonment. What next? The death penalty which is what some zealots have advocated for “deniers”?

      This is a very brave and intelligent but still vulnerable 19 year girl we are discussing. Have you not the slightest spark of decency or are you saying those who do not agree with you do not have a right to speak out? Imagine such treatment was meeted out to Naomi’s alternate. her background is well publicised, do you think she would survive it? It is clearly not a risk in this situation but consider, if you drive a person to extreme actions is that not the moral equivalent of a death penalty?

  25. How many facts can a fact checker check?
    How many false facts can a fact checker check?
    How many false facts can a fact checker check?
    How many false facts can a false fact checker check?

    Who fact checks the fact checkers?

  26. You can bet that it will be taken up the legal food chain all the way up to the European Human Rights Court. I think only real trolling, spreading lies for the sake of it should be flagged. Genuine expressions should be left in peace.

  27. “Section 230 of the law says: “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”
    But websites don’t have to be dumb conduits in order to be shielded from lawsuits: the law allows for editorial intervention under subparagraph (c)(2)(A) for material that is “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.”
    So when Twitter adds a fact checking notification to Trump’s tweets, as it did for the first time on Tuesday, it can do without taking on editorial liability if it believes the material is objectionable, whether it’s protected speech or not”


    • Twitter should butt out.

      What we need is a viable alternative to Twitter, Facebook, Youtube and Google.

      Let’s set up alternatives and see which platforms bring in the most users.

      I see it as being like cable tv. It used to be that the leftwing dominated the cable and broadcast networks and then along came the conservative Fox News Channel and took all their viewer away from them.

      I think the same thing would happen if conservative alternatives to the current social media platforms were available with the conservative alternatives taking users away from the leftwing censors.

    • JohnM, courts have ruled that “providers do not have unfettered discretion to declare online content ‘objectionable,’” and that the “otherwise objectionable” refers to things of the same type and scope as ““obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing”. there was nothing in the tweet that was “fact checked” that reaches that level.

    • John,

      Do you really want us to believe that over the past decade, there was this single event of bias by Twitter, YouTube (and parent Alphabet), Facebook, Pinterest, and the rest of big tech?

      I read the EO and the Register article.

  28. With trepidation, I note a future function for legal judges to have a say. Like much of the discussion above, this can be a two-edged sword.
    Back in 1986 we spent a lot of our corporate funds on a court case which tried to stop the then (leftist) Australian federal government, in league with the United Nations and its world heritage mechanisms, taking from us with no compensation our legal right and obligation to develop an emerging prospect with good uranium grades that also cost a lot of money and science to find and test.
    The judge whose majority opinion in the Federal Court likened our impending loss to the plight of a gas station owner whose business might suffer from a government plan to relocate the road that brought traffic to his service station.
    We lost the court case, our money spent on lawyers, the uranium prospect and our collective belief that all judges were bright, realistic and impartial. Said judge, it turned out, had just completed a three year term as President of the anti-nuclear group, the Australian Conservation Foundation. All this is fact, as documented. Now, if I add my opinion that this judge was not bright with his service station analogy, was not impartial because of ACF activism, was not mpartial in that he should have recused himself but was too activist to do so, then I start to enter the realm of punishment for offering a distasteful or offending opinion — one that might have to be settled by a judge!
    These matters defy created social structures like conventions and agreements and laws and regulations. You reach a point where power rules, power at the end of a Mao gun or the power of a presidential office, with lots of hurtful outcomes like mass murder, from seemingly trite words.
    What to do about it? Vote for Donald Trump again. He is a no fuss realist confronting an army talking of d–k heads. In this, the best man has won.
    Geoff S

    (over to you, Nick, in yet another Melbourne month of global cooling with both Tmax & Tmin well below the long term average.)

  29. DT’s action against Twitter is partly based on the notion that when Twitter censors content it implicitly defines content and that the medium becomes a publisher instead of a social platform. The difference has tax and liabibility consequences. It appears to me that Korrektiv is the censor used by Facebook and that the same notion applies.

    • Indeed these are hardly the actions befitting of such Essen based entity purporting to be claiming the Charity and Tax Concessions from both NRW and Federal German Republic. Hit them in their fat wallet, and then we’ll see how keen they are to continue the work of The Brost and WAZ.

  30. The problem society has with all these social media type companies is that they are all replete with these University postmodernist types that reject the possibility of reliable knowledge, and deny the existence of a universal stable reality.

    Objective reality, morality, truth, even human nature are to be attacked and deconstructed until there is no meaning.

    Postmodernists delight in the rejection of meta narratives because they reject the concept of truth that meta narratives presuppose.

    It’s a disease of the mind.

Comments are closed.