Last year, Facebook filed a motion to dismiss congressional candidate Laura Loomerโs defamation lawsuit and in a controversial move, invoked the First Amendment to defend its labeling of Loomer as a โdangerous individualโ and its use of that label to ban her from the platform in May 2019.
Now in a fresh motion for summary judgment, which is seeking to dismiss Loomerโs claims that the social network defamed her, Facebook is doubling down on this First Amendment defense.
In its motion, Facebook argues that โMs. Loomer has not identified any false or defamatory statements of fact made by Facebookโ and claims that its labeling of her as โdangerousโ โor saying that she โpromotedโ or โengagedโ in โhateโโ is a โprotected statement of opinionโ – seemingly ignoring the irony that Facebookโs protected opinion is being used to justify the censorship of the opinions of one of its users.
Facebook also claims that Loomer cannot โdemonstrate by ‘clear and convincing evidence’ that Facebook acted with maliceโ when it assigned these labels to her.
Interestingly, Facebook did briefly change its terms to allow โthreats that could lead to deathโ and โcalls for high-severity violenceโ against those it designates as โDangerous Individualsโ two months after Loomer was banned.
Facebook has since backtracked on this policy.
In its motion, Facebook also implies that if one big tech platform bans a user for violating their rules, this demonstrates that theyโre dangerous.
โWhile Ms. Loomer may not believe she is โdangerousโ or has โpromoted hate,โ others disagreeโas demonstrated by her admission that online platforms have widely banned her,โ the motion states.
This notion seemingly ignores that many users of these platforms are banned under questionable circumstances and that they can be banned for several reasons that wouldnโt conventionally be seen as dangerous.
In addition to this, Facebook defends its banning of Loomer by citing its policy that merely associating with or supporting people that it labels as dangerous is grounds for a user also having their account terminated.

โFor Ms. Loomer, Facebook identified the fact that she had appeared with Gavin McInnes and expressed support for Faith Goldyโboth of whom were previously banned from Facebook pursuant to the DIO [Dangerous Individuals and Organizations] policy as examples of Ms. Loomerโs conduct contributing to her removal under the DIO Policy,โ the motion notes.
Facebook is arguing that anyone who disagrees with its labeling of someone as dangerous, which Facebook admits is a statement of opinion, may also be banned from the platform, if they dare to support or associate with that person.
The motion concludes by invoking The Communications Decency Act and the First Amendment: โBoth the Communications Decency Act and the First Amendment provide absolute protection for Facebookโs decision and therefore independently bar her claims.โ
Facebook suggests that its free speech First Amendment rights entitle it to prevent Loomer’s ability to communicate on the platform.
Read Facebookโs motion for summary judgment here.