Facts can also be defined by language, available information, and subjective reasoning. If Middle Eastern internet sites tell millions of individuals that non-Muslims are the Devil incarnate and the Holocaust never happened, does this make it a fact? It does to millions of people. If some believe, in the face of all available evidence, that our current president was not born in this country, does it make it a fact? It does, to some people. If our government chose to invade a country where the "evidence showed" that our arch enemy was hiding there, amassing weapons of mass destruction, was that a fact? For many, it was a fact until later evidence proved it somewhat dubious.
Our current political climate is lousy with conspiracy theories on both sides of the spectrum. There is nothing secretive about many of them, especially since the media now has the wherewithal to overturn every political or societal rock to reveal the ugly underbelly beneath. But what if the rocks uncovered are selected with a certain bias? What if certain rocks, if overturned, result in a loss of advertising revenue due to the disapproval or disgust of our democracy of media consumers — or a loss of votes for a favored party?
Could naming something a conspiracy theory automatically serve to reduce it to something not worth examining?
To paraphrase Jesus, let he who is without conspiracy theories lift the first slimy stone.