TV journalist sues Facebook for flagging his videos as false, misleading

An Emmy-winning TV journalist sued Facebook for flagging his videos as false and misleading, claiming the social media giant defames users with certain scientific or political viewpoints.

John Stossel, a former ABC and Fox news reporter and presenter, alleged in a lawsuit filed on Wednesday that Facebook's fact-checking process is "nothing more than a pretext" to discredit users when the company disagrees with their opinions. Facebook and its fact-checkers, he argued, are "serving as judge, jury, and executioner regarding whether users are on the 'right' or 'wrong' side of a complex scientific debate."

A Facebook representative said in a statement, "We believe this case is without merit and we will defend ourselves vigorously against the allegations."

The complaint filed in the Northern District of California comes amid escalating scrutiny by Republican lawmakers who say that major tech companies engage in censorship of people with different political, social or scientific views than the companies' owners and managers.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott in September signed a bill that prohibits large social media platforms from banning users or blocking content based on their political viewpoints.

"There is a dangerous movement by some social media companies to silence conservative ideas and values," he said in a video posted to Facebook.

A federal judge in June blocked a similar Florida law from taking effect that would have allowed the state to fine social media companies for banning politicians and candidates for conduct that violates their terms of service. U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle found that the law violates the platforms' constitutional free speech rights by forcing them to host speech that breaches their standards.

The lawsuit brought by Stossel, a libertarian, may suffer from the same deficiencies, according to Aaron Mackey, an attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

"When someone writes a news report and someone criticizes it, that is protected speech," he said. "First Amendment protections are designed to be very robust and protect the broadest range of speech without fear of censorship or other chilling if we were worried about liability."

Stossel objected to Facebook's conduct over two of his videos in which he discussed climate change. Stossel v. Facebook, Inc., CV21-07385 (N.D. Cal., filed Sept. 22, 2021).

In one video, Stossel stated that bad policies were the major cause of the 2020 wildfires while acknowledging that climate change contributed to the blazes. Facebook placed a label on the post stating that "independent fact-checkers say this information could mislead people" and redirected users to a page that Stossel said misattributed quotes to him on the issue.

Another video, titled "Are We Doomed?" that questioned claims made by those who Stossel referred to as environmental alarmists, was labeled by Facebook "partly false." It included clips of a panel he moderated that was hosted by the Heartland Institute, a conservative public policy group known for its disagreement with some liberal climate change opinions.

Krista L. Baughman, a partner at Dhillon Law Group representing Stossel, said her client's video was improperly flagged as false for arguing that climate change is not as urgent an issue as it's widely being portrayed.

She added, "Courts need to be addressing how our traditional speech laws apply to these companies" and have not because of "some immunities Facebook will argue."

In addition to First Amendment protections, Facebook's conduct may also be covered by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a federal law shielding internet platforms from liability arising from content by third parties, according to Daniel B. Lifschitz of Johnson and Johnson. He pointed to Facebook contracting fact-checking duties to a third party, Science Feedback.

"Section 230 allows the appending of labels," he said.

Mackey, the Electronic Freedom Foundation attorney, agreed that Facebook has immunity under the law because it did not make a "material contribution" to Science Feedback's fact-checking analysis.

Baughman countered that Section 230 does not apply to this case, noting that "the speech is Facebook's own or was commissioned."