Section 230 protects "interactive computer services", such as Facebook, and their users from liability wrt content that they get from other "content providers". (FWIW, I think that there's a legitimate argument wrt liability protection of ICS, but I think that users should be liable for what they repeat.) Section 230 also protects ICS from liability wrt deciding what not to carry.
However, Section 230 says nothing about liability for your own content.
When Facebook says "we're banning that content because it's not factual", most of us would interpret that as "Facebook says that's a lie and the people saying it are liars." That's open to a defamation claim. That's what Facebook is trying to head off with "they're not fact-checks, they're opinions."
IANAL either but final adjudication is more important that what anyone claimed in the course in the trial.
If you claim X, but the court adjudicated that Not-X is true, then you can build off the fact that Not-X was adjudicated. It doesn’t matter if you claimed X at one point
I agree. I think in your scenario, if you try to claim X in case B, after case A decided non-X, that might get you in trouble.
My question was more about when X was not adjudicated in case A. Do you get to claim the opposite in a different case? Or are you bound by your claims?
There are too many hypotheticals to answer the question with any degree of accuracy.
You are certainly not bound to keep claiming X though. I mean, there's such a thing as new information and research. If 10 years ago you claimed X, and the latest science is different now, then I don't think a proper judge or arbitrator would hold that against you. They will weigh the evidence provided at the time of the argument for the claim.
Of course it's gonna look bad if there were no significant events or it happened a week ago.
But that's only going to be considered if the counter-party even brings it up as an argument. There's a host of reason they may not choose to argue on that platform, not to mention in many situations there's no way to find out. Certainly if it's taking place in private arbitration, different counter-parties aren't going to know the arguments you claimed in different cases.
I want them to add TRUE to the question “fact check is just facebooks opinion?” ON FACT CHECK. So anyone can use it to refute anything ever said on there ever again
However, Section 230 says nothing about liability for your own content.
When Facebook says "we're banning that content because it's not factual", most of us would interpret that as "Facebook says that's a lie and the people saying it are liars." That's open to a defamation claim. That's what Facebook is trying to head off with "they're not fact-checks, they're opinions."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230