Did mainstream news outlets and fact-checkers verify claims made about Owens' amendment on social platforms?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Mainstream fact‑checkers and news organizations did examine and label claims tied to Candace Owens’ posts and related “amendment” assertions; for example, FactCheck.org states “There is no such amendment” and PolitiFact maintains a dossier of Owens‑related checks [1] [2]. Owens sued outlets and Lead Stories over Facebook fact checks; a judge dismissed parts of her claims, noting First Amendment protections and that her tortious‑interference claims were inadequately pleaded [3] [4].
1. Who examined the claims: established fact‑checkers stepped in
Prominent fact‑checking organizations are on record reviewing claims connected to Owens and to viral constitutional amendment memes: FactCheck.org explicitly debunked a circulating claim about a nonexistent “28th Amendment,” stating “There is no such amendment” [1]. PolitiFact maintains a searchable list of fact checks dealing with Candace Owens’ statements, showing mainstream fact‑check infrastructure was engaged in vetting her posts [2].
2. What the fact‑checks said: categorical refutation of the amendment claim
FactCheck.org’s entry directly asserts the absence of any such constitutional amendment, presenting that the meme’s core factual claim is false (“There is no such amendment”) [1]. That phrasing signals a definitive factual ruling from an established, nonpartisan fact‑checking project [1].
3. Platform response and the legal fight: Owens sued over being fact‑checked
Candace Owens challenged the fact‑checking process in court, suing USA Today and Lead Stories (entities that publish fact‑checks for Facebook) and alleging the fact checks harmed her contractual relationship with Facebook; courts have rejected aspects of those claims, with a judge finding Owens failed to adequately plead tortious interference and noting First Amendment protections for the defendants’ speech [3] [4]. The reporting indicates the dispute moved from social posts into litigation over whether fact‑checking is actionable interference [3] [4].
4. Judicial framing: courts emphasized First Amendment limits on the lawsuit
The Delaware judge dismissed portions of Owens’ lawsuit and wrote that a tortious‑interference claim cannot survive when it rests solely on statements protected by the First Amendment, undercutting the legal theory that fact‑checking per se constituted wrongful interference [3]. Law.com reporting similarly framed the argument and its rejection around whether the First Amendment shields the fact‑checkers and platform actions [4].
5. Two competing narratives: fact‑checkers’ public record vs. Owens’ legal argument
Fact‑checkers present a straightforward factual rebuttal to the amendment claim [1] [2]. Owens and her counsel framed the same fact‑checks as harmful business interference and contended the process was improperly motivated — an allegation courts have been reluctant to accept without stronger pleading [4] [3]. Both narratives exist in the sources: independent fact‑checking rulings and a litigant’s claim of harm.
6. What’s missing from available reporting
Available sources do not mention granular details of which specific social posts or platform labels prompted each fact check, nor do they provide full transcripts of the fact‑check articles cited; those specifics are not found in current reporting [3] [1] [4] [2]. Available sources also do not include final appellate dispositions or later outcomes beyond the reported dismissals and rulings [3] [4].
7. Why this matters: public information vs. platform moderation
The record shows mainstream fact‑checkers publicly contradicted the core claim about a new constitutional amendment [1]. The ensuing litigation illustrates a broader tension: public fact‑checking serves informational functions while some content creators view platform‑driven correction as censorship or business harm — a conflict courts must weigh between reputational/economic complaints and free‑speech protections [3] [4].
Bottom line: Established fact‑checking outlets publicly debunked the amendment claim and mainstream outlets have a history of checking Owens’ statements [1] [2]. Owens pursued litigation arguing those checks and platform actions caused contractual harm; judges have dismissed key tort claims while underscoring First Amendment protections for the fact‑checking speech [3] [4].