>If Stossel never said "Not by climate change", and then Facebook falsely attributed that statement to him and rated it false, they certainly seem guilty of defamation.
This is strictly, legally false in the US. What you have described here does not satisfy the legal definition of defamation. It will get thrown out in court immediately.
Here are the qualifiers for speech to be considered defamation:
To prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four things: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4) damages, or some harm caused to the person or entity who is the subject of the statement.
and here's a relevant Supreme Court ruling that further restrains what can be considered defamation:
In The New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), the Supreme Court held that for a publicly-known figure to succeed on a defamation claims, the public-figure plaintiff must show that the false, defaming statements was said with "actual malice." The Sullivan court stated that"actual malice" means that the defendant said the defamatory statement "with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not."
No. You would have to find the fault amounted to at least negligence (meaning your claim was made baselessly and without any thought or consideration at all). Simply being incorrect isn’t enough, you have to be incorrect and have been wholly and completely negligent about making the statements.
Xondono would also have to show they were damaged and harmed by the statements, which would be difficult to prove.
If a newspaper falsely said that someone (let’s use a non public figure in this example, as there is a different standard for public figures, making defamation more difficult) was a child molester, that in and of itself isn’t instantly defamation, even though the person can easily show they have been harmed and damaged. You would need to show that the newspaper did zero or near zero due diligence into making the claim, meaning they were negligent. If there was evidence supporting the fact that someone was a child molester (even if the claim was untrue), that could show there wasn’t negligence involved. It very well might be libel, but it wouldn’t be assured.
This is one reason it is important to say things like “alleged” or “ in my opinion.” So if I said, “in my opinion, xondono's understanding of the law is incorrect,” I haven’t defamed xondono, even if my opinion is wrong and even if he feels harmed by my opinion.
Where this gets interesting is with the Dominion Voting Systems lawsuits against Fox News, Newsmax and various on-air personalities. In this case, Dominion (https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2021/03/26/fox-dominion... ) is arguing that by amplifying statements that were false, what Fox News did was with “reckless disregard” for the truth. Meaning Fox was knowingly lying. Usually, Fox News would probably have an easier time defending itself, but Dominion argues that Fox ignored its outreach to correct the record. It’s also arguing that debunked claims were continuously amplified after being debunked, because those false claims led to higher ratings. As a result of the libel lawsuits by Dominion and others, other networks like Newsmax have gone as far as to withdraw their false claims on the air and publicly apologize. Dominion may still lose its lawsuits, but it’s a much more interesting defamation lawsuit that could have significantly more of an impact on other companies, including Facebook or its fact-checking partners, than whatever Stossel is trying to do.
> If I claimed "xondono's understanding of the law is incorrect", should that be a cause of action?
I guess that depends on other factors. Let’s say I’m correct (for the sake of argument, I’m not a lawyer, I’m not even in the US). You’d have to be negligent (amongst other things), so as I understand it, you’d have to set yourself as an authority. It would be different to make that statement if, for instance, you were to be a judge.
Defamation laws in the US are narrow. Insulting someone, calling their character into question -- that's not defamation. Even technically factual statements can be shown to be not defamation if the context shows they were not meant to be taken literally. The word "liar" is very, very unlikely to ever rise to that standard.
This is also why Stossel's claim is likely to fail. It is very hard to argue that the label "misleading" is a provably false statement of fact.
IANAL, but if you're hoping for Stossel to win, you probably shouldn't hold your breath.
No, still probably not. People call each other liars all of the time both online and in real life. You still need to connect this to some kind of intent, you still need to show that the instance of "you're lying" demonstrates a reckless disregard for truth.
In American courts that is a very, very hard bar to clear -- particularly if the target is a public figure.
it's not random "people" , it would be ycombinator, an entity with considerable weight which they would use against me. Second, stossel's job is to generally be credible, as he's a journalist. Doesn't the attack on his credibility by a major news medium (FB; regardless if it's disguised as third party for which we have no guarantees that they re impartial) carry more weight than if some random person shouted at him on the street? What if he got fired by his employer because they consider his reputation to be tarnished now? Why is it OK that people have no recourse against such action with social media companies?
Anyway i understand the thing about the high bar of the US. But, if this comes to the point where facebook has to prove they did not have intent or that they were not stating false things, then stossel will still have "won", because from then on facebook will have to do that for all their future "labeling" of information
(i think that "misleading" can very well taken to mean false. and the fact that it's not applied automatically by an algorithm makes it carry more intent)
At the end of the day, if you don't believe me then you can watch the court case and see how it resolves.
Stossel can sue Facebook, and if Facebook gets dismissed for 230 reasons he can also sue the fact checker directly. You don't have to believe me, you can wait and see how that works out. I'm just saying, I wouldn't hold my breath.
its not that i dont believe u, i m just stating the things that seem odd to me from a common sense point of view [IANAL , obviously]
I 'm not expecting that he will win, but maybe facebook will be forced to prove something which will mean they will have to prove it again in the future
It’s the demonstration of malice that will make this suit fail. You have to show evidence that the alleged defamer knew their statements are false. You might even need to prove intent. Unless they dig up a Facebook email saying “We know this isn’t true but let’s screw Stossel” it’s going to be a hard case to win.
Exactly correct, which is why virtually all defamation suits in the US don't ever make it to court. And it should be that way! Overly broad defamation laws greatly restrict freedom of speech.
This is strictly, legally false in the US. What you have described here does not satisfy the legal definition of defamation. It will get thrown out in court immediately.
Here are the qualifiers for speech to be considered defamation:
To prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four things: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4) damages, or some harm caused to the person or entity who is the subject of the statement.
and here's a relevant Supreme Court ruling that further restrains what can be considered defamation:
In The New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), the Supreme Court held that for a publicly-known figure to succeed on a defamation claims, the public-figure plaintiff must show that the false, defaming statements was said with "actual malice." The Sullivan court stated that"actual malice" means that the defendant said the defamatory statement "with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not."
Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation