NOTE: The original post yesterday got derailed because the first commenter went off over COVID vaccine. With over 500 comments, almost entirely about that rather than Stossel’s issue, the thread was entirely off-topic and lost. So, I deleted the post and this re-post will be heavily moderated. No COVID comments will be accepted on this thread. – Anthony
Here is his video:
John Stossel writes:
I just sued Facebook.
I didn’t want to sue. I hate lawsuits. I tried for a year to reach someone at Facebook to fix things, but Facebook wouldn’t.
Here’s the problem: Facebook uses “independent fact-checkers” to try to reduce fake news on their site.
That’s a noble goal.
Unfortunately, at least one Facebook “fact-checker” is a climate-alarmist group that cleverly uses its Facebook connections to stop debate.
Facebook is a private company. It has every right to cut me off.
But Facebook does not have the right to just lie about me, yet that’s exactly what Facebook and its “fact-checker” did. That’s defamation, and it’s just wrong.
My video this week shows videos that Facebook throttled.
The defamation started with the fact-checker, a group called Climate Feedback. They didn’t like that my video reported facts suggesting that government mismanagement probably played a bigger role in causing California’s wildfires than climate change.
Climate Feedback got Facebook to censor this as “misleading” and link to a page that still declares the following quote misleading: “Forest fires are caused by poor management. Not by climate change.”
As if that were something I said.
But I didn’t! I never said that.
In fact, I said: “Climate change has made things worse. California has warmed 3 degrees.”
I’ve worked at NBC, CBS, ABC and Fox. All would have fired me if I falsely attributed a quote!
I emailed Climate Feedback’s editor. She didn’t respond. But two of three scientists listed as their “reviewers” agreed to interviews.
Stefan Doerr of Swansea University surprised me by saying he’d never even watched my video!
“If this is implying that we have reviewed the video,” said Doerr, “this is clearly wrong.”
Another reviewer, Zeke Hausfather of The Breakthrough Institute, hadn’t seen the video either. “I certainly did not write a Climate Feedback piece reviewing your segment.”
After he watched it, I asked, “Is [misleading] a fair label?”
“I don’t necessarily think so,” he replied. “While there are plenty of debates around how much to emphasize fire management versus climate change, your piece clearly discussed that both were at fault.”
Still, neither Climate Feedback nor Facebook will change their smear.
Then things got worse. I re-aired a video on climate change myths titled “Are We Doomed?”
Three climate scientists argue that we are not “doomed” because we can adapt to climate change. They invited climate alarmists to debate them. None would.
Climate Feedback got Facebook to throttle that video, too, and declare it “partly false.” Why?
Only one of their reviewers agreed to an interview.
Patrick Brown of San Jose State University didn’t like that my video suggests America can adjust to rising sea levels. He claimed sea levels could rise 200 feet.
“You’re citing an extreme,” I point out. “The [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] doesn’t consider that likely.”
“I don’t know if they assess sea level rise out to 1,000 years,” he responds.
They don’t.
It’s absurd that Facebook lets Climate Feedback censor me over something that might happen in 1,000 years.
Climate Feedback also cited my video for questioning the claim that hurricanes have gotten stronger.
But Brown, Climate Feedback’s own reviewer, said, “That’s wrong that you were criticized for saying that. … The IPCC [doesn’t] claim that [hurricanes] … are increasing.”
Later, Brown told us I was cited for “omission of contextual information, rather than specific ‘facts’ being ‘wrong.’”
So, their “fact-check” wasn’t about actual facts?
Still, they rated my video “partly false,” which Facebook defines as content that “includes some factual inaccuracies.” My video did not contain any factual inaccuracies, and they know it.
Climate Feedback and its parent group, Science Feedback, use Facebook to censor lots of responsible people, such as science writers John Tierney, Michael Shellenberger and Bjorn Lomborg.
Facebook has every right to choose who can use its platform.
But Facebook does not have a legal right to knowingly and recklessly lie about what I say. That’s defamation.
I hope my lawsuit will make them think twice about doing it again—to me or to anyone else.
John Stossel is author of “Give Me a Break: How I Exposed Hucksters, Cheats, and Scam Artists and Became the Scourge of the Liberal Media.” For other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit www.creators.com.
Oh man how I detest FB and ‘social media’ in general. I rarely peruse it these days.
It caters to the lowest common denominator. That is why is is referred to as ‘social media,’ instead of “news” or “science” media.
Is there any estimate as to when this lawsuit will be heard in court (if there isn’t a settlement before that)?
This is a lawsuit that isn’t going anywhere. For starters the terms and conditions of signing up to Facebook include the line: “We and you agree that, by entering into this arbitration provision, all parties are waiving their respective rights to a trial by jury or to participate in a class or representative action.”
Similarly facebook have set the rules that state:
“Specifically, when you share, post, or upload content that is covered by intellectual property rights on or in connection with our Products, you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, and worldwide license to host, use, distribute, modify, run, copy, publicly perform or display, translate, and create derivative works of your content”
So by signing up to facebook you have effectively signed away any right to sue them for defamation. You have given them the right to do what they like (i.e. modify) with any videos you upload and they do not have to distribute them to your followers.
If an action is against law, there is no way an organization can shield themselves, even with an agreement. You cant slander an individual. You can reject his ideas but falsely attacking an individual is actionable if it causes him harm to him.
That is complete nonsense and has nothing to do with defamation.
Even if we accept your stupid premise above all it moves is whether Facebook is the author or publisher of the defamation.
In Australia we actually just had a high court ruling on whether websites were publishers for comments on articles and the answer was yes. Lots of websites are turning of anonymous comments because of that you have to identify yourself legally to be able to comment on the site.
My covid-free comment yesterday was a hope that Stossel was knowledgeable enough to do a little judge/court shopping to get a speedy resolution to his case.
If his case gets in front of a judge who will allow interminable delays, ala the Mann/Steyn saga, the defense will bleed Stossel dry before he has even a shot at a favorable verdict. Stossel can’t put even a scratch, let alone a dent in the defendants’ deep pockets.
I wish Stossel well in this effort. It will have a positive effect for others who have been defamed by Farcebook and Climate Feedback, and Stossel has a lot of company there.
Hundreds of suits would start to add up to some bucks for Farcebook and Climate feedback to start shelling out.
Judge shopping isn’t allowed. The terms and conditions state:
In all other cases, you agree that the claim must be resolved exclusively in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California or a state court located in San Mateo County. You also agree that you submit to the personal jurisdiction of either of these courts for the purpose of litigating any such claim, and that the laws of the State of California will govern these Terms and any claim, without regard to conflict of law provisions.
The Compleat Angler writes that “Judge shopping is not allowed.”
–
–
Yup. He filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
Good luck to him.
I had no idea what the Facebooks user agreement entails. I’ve never signed up for it and I can’t view anything on Facebook because I don’t have an account.
I’m a first strike kind of guy. I’ve censored them from my life so there is no possibility of them ever censoring me.
Defamation is country by country not the point of origin, a ruling in USA has no standing in another country. Whether you can get the person to come under your country law can be problematic but the next move is usually to apply to block the website.That is how websites are put onto the blocked list in other countries.
Pick any country and search “List of websites blocked in xxxxxxxxxxx”
If you have defamation proceedings against you try travelling to that country and see what happens.
And which country or countries do you think John Stossel filed in? Admittedly if he had any sense he would have done so in the UK which is well known for letting Russian Oligarchs sue publishers for libel but I doubt he will be going down that route.
Which contradicts your statement above .. you said he waived his rights by signing the terms and conditions. You seem very sketchy about exactly what you are saying.
He automatically disagrees with the previous post. It can make him look like a contortionist at times, but he seems to enjoy it so I’m not judging him!
It’s a funny old world we live in, and sometimes things happen that no one would have predicted. Or could have predicted.
Censorship in liberal democracies in peacetime has been almost non-existent. Expressions of opinion have traditionally been limited by governments, using laws about obscenity, national security and suchlike. Legal actions based on libel and slander have also acted as a bit of a brake on personal attacks in public forums.
So when the internet came along and it promised freedom of expression for every one of us, it seemed as if the world was going to be an even more free and open place. Who would ever have thought that the owners of a handful of websites would come to dominate the exchange of news and views to such an extent that they were able to suppress opinions and facts that they didn’t like?
And who would have ever thought that university professors would be fired for engaging in academic debate? Aren’t universities supposed to promote the vigorous exchange of ideas?
And governments are getting on the censorship bandwagon. In the UK, police officers are employed to monitor Facebook and Twitter, looking for people saying the “wrong” things, mostly about gender issues. It’s worse in Scotland, where “hate speech” (which has been illegal for some time) now appears to mean absolutely anything as long as someone objects to it.
I’m glad I’m getting old; I won’t have to listen to stories like John Stossel’s much longer. Good for him, standing up to the Masters of the Universe. But he really shouldn’t have to, in a sane world. Best of luck, John.
For decades there have been speculative fiction stories written about dystopias where *conservative* overlords, often owners or officers of large corporations, rule with an iron fist, especially the control of information.
But now that we are here, in that future so many wrote about, it’s the “liberal” owners and officers of large corporations that are acting like despots.
Power corrupts.
Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
History repeats itself – first as tragedy, then as farce.
Does anyone else see the irony here? We are going to delete your post if it does says anything about X…just saying.
For the first few hours after posting on Youtube, Stossel’s video was labeled “Private” and necessitated a password (which no one had). The next day everything was normal — no password, designated Public. I wonder if Youtube had one of their famous “mistakes” and if they found the could correct it after Stossel’s lawyers suggested a lawsuit against them.
Just for the record the accepted maximum level the sea can rise is 195 feet (60m).
That requires every glacier and ice sheet on the planet to melt and that can’t happen in 1000 years it’s too big for that timeframe.
https://sealevel.nasa.gov/understanding-sea-level/global-sea-level/ice-melt
Candace Owens had a pretty strong case yet it utterly failed!
My skin crawls when I read or hear the word Facebook. It’s a hideous nighborhood filled to overflowing with broken identities. Most of the web these days is nothing but cancer.
WUWT, ZH, TGP is about all I can take usually.
AP’s fact checkers recently declared that the NSPA (National School Board Association) had never asked Biden to declare parents who oppose critical race theory and mask mandates as domestic terrorism.
Despite the published memo that showed they did.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/ap-factcheck-claims-nsba-never-labeled-parents-domestic-terrorists