Another Court Smacks Down Candace Owens For Trying To Sue Facebook Fact Checkers

For the second time, conservative commentator Candace Owens has lost a lawsuit against the news outlets who serve as fact checkers for Facebook, and this time it was the Delaware Supreme Court that said she didn't have a case. Owens had claimed that the fact checkers labeling her material as "false" impeded her ability to make money from advertisers, but the Court said that this doesn't amount to an actual legal claim on Owens' part. Ring of Fire's Farron Cousins explains what happened.

Become a member today!

Support us by becoming a monthly patron on Patreon, and help keep progressive media alive!

Find our merchandise at Teespring

Spread the word! LIKE and SHARE this video or leave a comment to help direct attention to the stories that matter. And SUBSCRIBE to stay connected with Ring of Fire's video content!

Support Ring of Fire by subscribing to our YouTube channel

Be sociable! Follow us on:

Follow more of our stories at

Subscribe to our podcast

*This transcript was generated by a third-party transcription software company, so please excuse any typos.

Republican commentator Candace Owens got smacked down by the Delaware Supreme Court this week after she had appealed a lower courts ruling that effectively threw out a defamation lawsuit that she had filed against two news organizations that serve as paid fact checkers for Facebook. The Delaware Supreme Court in smacking down her lawsuit, they didn't issue a multi-page report. They didn't give a long diatribe. They were able to dismantle her entire case in a ruling that was only 68 words, 68 words, folks. That's all they needed to tell Candace Owens, you don't have a case. So here is what happened. Candace Owens last year, I guess it was, filed a lawsuit because Facebook fact checkers, which included two companies, USA Today and Lead Stories LLC, they slapped labels on some of the things Owens had posted on Facebook saying that this is false.

And at one point calling it a hoax alert, in her attempts to downplay the pandemic. Now, she filed a lawsuit, one, alleging defamation, two, alleging that these labels put on there by the fact checkers that Facebook pays to do this, it's somehow violated, you know, basically infringed upon her contract with Facebook as, as it says in the, the thing here. I don't know what contract with Facebook she has, but that to me seems problematic. Right? But anyway, it impeded her ability to make money from advertisers on Facebook because, you know, you're telling everybody all her stuff is false and you can't do that, even though Facebook literally pays them to do exactly that. So even if you had a contract with Facebook, you can't get around it. These are Facebook's rules. If you post something false, saying that it is false is not defamation.

It is not a violation of your contract. Sure, it probably does impede your ability to make money from advertisers if they know they're giving money to a person who's just straight up lying. But you can't just sue for that. And that's what both of the courts, the lower court and the Delaware Supreme Court told her, they both said you don't have a case. You haven't shown any actual damage that would warrant a claim. You haven't shown any, basically violation of any law that would say that you could sue these people for what they've done. So Owens lost. I'm, I'm willing to bet she's probably gonna try to appeal this one too. But if her lawyers are smart, they're gonna tell her like, look, you lost this one. You do not have a case.

There is no defamation. Fact checkers, you know, do their job. They're actually paid by the company you're mad at to do that job. And so that would supersede any other agreements or arrangements that have been made between Owens and the others. And maybe contract is the wrong word that the courts or these reports are using. So, you know, I don't want to say she has a contract with Facebook. That's what's in these reports. So that's the word I'm using. But either way, contract or not, that part is actually totally irrelevant. What is important is the fact that this is what they do now. You know, this is actually what Kyle Rittenhouse came out earlier this week and said he's gonna do, he's starting a new group to raise money, to sue people in the media.

And as somebody who, by the way, has been threatened with multiple lawsuits from right wingers in the past year.