Which, correct me if I'm wrong, ought to mean that perhaps de-platforming others for disagreeing with said "opinions" which are cast as "facts" and dissenting opinions being cast as "false" might be an actionable cause, both in tort and perhaps in criminal law as well?
I'm not thinking libel, I'm thinking fraud. I.e.; fraudulent pretexts for booting people from a public forum, denial of speech if said forum can be said to be a monopoly and therefore a public forum and therefore subject to 1st Amendment protection. This is a viable legal argument, as illustrated by Jehovah's Witnesses prevailing in a case in which a private road was deemed to be public by the courts for the purposes of speech and religious activity.
I know what you meant; my point is that using opinions cast as facts to contradict and censor does not shield from liability for fraud. It is a ruse to punish dissenters and push a political agenda, which is also a violation of election laws, undeclared contribution in kind. The more you dig the more illegality you find. Let's also look into Zuckerberg's $300 million contributions to Democrat election infrastructure in swing states.
Which, correct me if I'm wrong, ought to mean that perhaps de-platforming others for disagreeing with said "opinions" which are cast as "facts" and dissenting opinions being cast as "false" might be an actionable cause, both in tort and perhaps in criminal law as well?
I don't think so. The whole point of calling them opinions is to make them not liable.
I'm not thinking libel, I'm thinking fraud. I.e.; fraudulent pretexts for booting people from a public forum, denial of speech if said forum can be said to be a monopoly and therefore a public forum and therefore subject to 1st Amendment protection. This is a viable legal argument, as illustrated by Jehovah's Witnesses prevailing in a case in which a private road was deemed to be public by the courts for the purposes of speech and religious activity.
I mean liable as in liability, not writing untruthfully about someone.
I know what you meant; my point is that using opinions cast as facts to contradict and censor does not shield from liability for fraud. It is a ruse to punish dissenters and push a political agenda, which is also a violation of election laws, undeclared contribution in kind. The more you dig the more illegality you find. Let's also look into Zuckerberg's $300 million contributions to Democrat election infrastructure in swing states.
I don't think the crooked court system will address any of this.
Fact checkers are like journalists in a way, they’re nothing more than paid liars and propagandists.
That was obvious from the start.