copenlu/druid huggingface dataset:
Claim: “Caitlin Clark rejects $400 million deal from Nike” saying “not with that Kaepernick clown.’” (Facebook Post, 2024-06-21)
Evidence (2024-07-12): Did WNBA basketball player Caitlin Clark reject a $400 million deal from Nike because of the company's association with NFL-quarterback-turned-civil-rights-activist Colin Kaepernick? No, that's not true: This claim first appeared in an article on a website with a satire disclaimer. There is no publicly available or credible evidence anything like this ever happened. [...] Indiana Fever Guard Caitlin Clark accepted a $28 million deal from Nike in April 2024. [...] The claim about Clark rebuffing a Nike deal over Kaepernick came from a June 19, 2024, SpaceXMania article (archived here) titled, "Breaking: Caitlin Clark Turns Down Massive Nike Endorsement Worth $400 Million, 'Never In A Million Years With That Kaepernick Clown.'" The disclaimer (archived here) on the SpaceXmania website reads:
Claim: “Caitlin Clark rejects $400 million deal from Nike” saying “not with that Kaepernick clown.’” (Facebook Post, 2024-06-21)
Evidence (2024-05-14): There aren't many athletes with as much national draw as Caitlin Clark. [...] MORE: Caitlin Clark signs $28 million Nike deal [...] Caitlin Clark NIL deals
Claim: “Caitlin Clark rejects $400 million deal from Nike” saying “not with that Kaepernick clown.’” (Facebook Post, 2024-06-21)
Evidence (2024-06-22): In a surprising and highly controversial move, rising basketball star Caitlin Clark has turned down a lucrative $400 million endorsement deal with sports giant Nike. The decision has sparked widespread debate, particularly because of Clark’s blunt and pointed reason for rejecting the offer: her disapproval of Nike’s ongoing partnership with Colin Kaepernick, whom she referred to as "that Kaepernick clown." This rejection not only highlights the complexities of personal values in professional endorsements but also brings into sharp focus the role of social and political beliefs in sports marketing [...] For Caitlin Clark, rejecting the $400 million deal is a bold statement that could have lasting implications for her career. Financially, the deal would have provided significant resources and security. However, Clark’s decision underscores her commitment to her personal beliefs and public image. [...] Caitlin Clark’s rejection of a $400 million deal from Nike, citing her disapproval of Colin Kaepernick, is a bold and unprecedented move in the world of sports endorsements. It highlights the complex interplay between personal values, professional opportunities, and public perception.
Claim: “Caitlin Clark rejects $400 million deal from Nike” saying “not with that Kaepernick clown.’” (Facebook Post, 2024-06-21)
Evidence (2024-04-24): Caitlin Clark is set to sign a new Nike deal valued at $28 million over 8 years, reports say Caitlin Clark appears to be on the cusp of setting another record. [...] Excel Sports Management, which represents Clark, declined to comment. Nike did not immediately respond to a request for comment from The Associated Press.
Claim: “Caitlin Clark rejects $400 million deal from Nike” saying “not with that Kaepernick clown.’” (Facebook Post, 2024-06-21)
Evidence (2024-06-21): "BREAKING: Caitlin Clark Rejects $400 Million Deal From Nike, 'Not With That Kaepernick Clown,’' read a June 21 Facebook post. It included an image of Clark and former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick. [...] News, "Caitlin Clark Rejects $400 Million Deal From Nike, ‘Not With That Kaepernick, (archived), June 21, 2024 SpaceXMania, "Breaking: Caitlin Clark Turns Down Massive Nike Endorsement Worth $400 Million, "Never In A Million Years With That Kaepernick Clown" (archived), June 19, 2024
Claim: “Caitlin Clark rejects $400 million deal from Nike” saying “not with that Kaepernick clown.’” (Facebook Post, 2024-06-21)
Evidence (2024-08-06): In mid-June 2024, posts on Facebook, among other places, claimed that WNBA star Caitlin Clark had turned down a $400 million endorsement deal from Nike because of its partnership with former NFL quarterback and civil rights activist Colin Kaepernick. The story appears to have originated on the website esspots.com, which wrote: In a surprising and highly controversial move, rising basketball star Caitlin Clark has turned down a lucrative $400 million endorsement deal with sports giant Nike. The decision has sparked widespread debate, particularly because of Clark's blunt and pointed reason for rejecting the offer: her disapproval of Nike's ongoing partnership with Colin Kaepernick, whom she referred to as "that Kaepernick clown." [...] Because the claim that Caitlin Clark turned down a $400 million endorsement deal with Nike due to Kaepernick stems from a website whose output is explicitly described as satirical in nature, this claim is rated "Labeled Satire."
Claim: “Caitlin Clark rejects $400 million deal from Nike” saying “not with that Kaepernick clown.’” (Facebook Post, 2024-06-21)
Evidence (2017-10-01): Former bosses of collapsed London-listed oil company Afren charged with $400 million fraud 2017-09-27T09:04:41Z [...] SOLDIERS SPEAK OUT ON KAEPERNICK: His protest 'makes him more American than anyone' [...] Ray Lewis says 'racist' tweet from Colin Kaepernick's girlfriend kept the Ravens from signing the quarterback 2017-09-06T13:28:54Z
Claim: “Caitlin Clark rejects $400 million deal from Nike” saying “not with that Kaepernick clown.’” (Facebook Post, 2024-06-21)
Evidence (2024-10-06): Colin Kaepernick Seen With Mookie Betts At Lakers Game After Latest NFL Push [...] Colin Kaepernick Posts Video Of Entire Workout With Seahawks Star Tyler Lockett [...] Colin Kaepernick Would Be 'Good Fit' In Seattle, Seahawks D-Lineman Says 'Glee' Star Matthew Morrison Sells Hollywood Hills Home for $4.7 Million
Claim: “Caitlin Clark rejects $400 million deal from Nike” saying “not with that Kaepernick clown.’” (Facebook Post, 2024-06-21)
Evidence (2024-10-05): The JBP kicks off the latest episode reacting to Wale’s tweet about Melyssa Ford (26:56) before turning to new music including the buzz surrounding Taylor Swift’s album (42:02) as well as Drake’s ‘Push Ups’ hitting DSPs (44:33). The room then debates whether Drake moves OVO Fest with Future & Metro due to perform in Toronto the same weekend (53:35), more music from Nicki Minaj & Lucky Daye (1:26:35), and Miami is hosting a nude cruise come 2025 (1:49:21). Also, Shyne speaks on ‘99 club shooting in recent interview (2:02:18), Jontay Porter has been banned for life from the NBA (2:33:33), Nike inks Caitlin Clark to endorsement deal (2:43:03), and much more! Become a Patron of The Joe Budden Podcast for additional bonus episodes and visual content for all things JBP! Join our Patreon here: www.patreon.com/joebudden Sleeper Picks: Joe | Inayah - "Won’t Let Me" Ice | Tory Lanez - "When It’s Dark" Parks | Nas & DJ Premier - "Define My Name" Ish | MaKenzie - "Velvet" Melyssa | Äyanna - "Girlfriend" Emanny | WANMOR - "Alone With You"
Claim: “Caitlin Clark rejects $400 million deal from Nike” saying “not with that Kaepernick clown.’” (Facebook Post, 2024-06-21)
Evidence (2017-12-31): SUNDAY PROFILE: Petula Clark: Still "Living for Today" | Watch Video [...] To hear Petula Clark perform the title track of her new album, "Living for Today," click on the video player below. [...] - billiejeanking.com - Follow @BillieJeanKing on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram
Claim: “Caitlin Clark rejects $400 million deal from Nike” saying “not with that Kaepernick clown.’” (Facebook Post, 2024-06-21)
Evidence (2015-09-17): - At least 85 killed in South Sudan oil tanker blast - With no U.S. export financing, GE says will build engine center in Europe - Single mum Snezana Markoski wins Bachelor - Jose Mourinho must be part of the reason for Chelsea's struggles... the squad haven't become bad overnight - TACKLE KEOWN - Soldiers crush protests as military seizes power in Burkina Faso - Incredible moment a pod of 30 orca whales chased powerboat off the coast of San Diego - I'm bringing sexy beak: Penguins are attracted to colours on their partner's bills that are invisible to our eyes - 'Pranks are funny. Homophobia is never funny': Elton John responds to Vladimir Putin phone joke... and says he is glad the 'unfortunate incident' highlighted gay discrimination - "Don't panic," Nigerian central bank head urges banks - Snezana Markoski wins The Bachelor Australia 2015! Mother-of-one steals Sam Wood's heart during emotional finale after he reveals he has 'fallen madly in love'
Claim: “Caitlin Clark rejects $400 million deal from Nike” saying “not with that Kaepernick clown.’” (Facebook Post, 2024-06-21)
Evidence (2024-06-25): Did Caitlin Clark Really Turn Down a $400M Nike Endorsement Because of Colin Kaepernick? Exploring Viral Rumour Unraveling the truth Did Caitlin Clark reject a $400M Nike deal over Colin Kaepernick? Dive into the viral rumor. Read more [...] The article shared on esspots.com narrated that Caitlin Clark, the upcoming basketball sensation, had refused the whopping $400 million deal from Nike, leading to a widespread discussion. For rejecting the offer, Clark cited her disagreement with Nike's collaboration with Colin Kaepernick, whom she harshly called "that Kaepernick clown."
Claim: “Caitlin Clark rejects $400 million deal from Nike” saying “not with that Kaepernick clown.’” (Facebook Post, 2024-06-21)
Evidence (2024-07-09): In an unexpected move that has sent shockwaves through both the sports and business worlds, Caitlin Clark, one of the brightest stars in women’s basketball, has turned down a $400 million endorsement deal from Nike. The reason for her rejection? Her disapproval of Nike’s ongoing partnership with Colin Kaepernick, whom she referred to as "that Kaepernick clown." This bold decision by Clark has ignited intense debate and highlighted the intersection of sports, politics, and personal values in the realm of athlete endorsements. [...] For Caitlin Clark, rejecting the $400 million deal is a bold statement that could have lasting implications for her career. Financially, the deal would have provided significant resources and security. However, Clark’s decision underscores her commitment to her personal beliefs and public image. [...] Caitlin Clark’s rejection of a $400 million deal from Nike, citing her disapproval of Colin Kaepernick, is a bold and unprecedented move in the world of sports endorsements. It highlights the complex interplay between personal values, professional opportunities, and public perception.
Claim: “Caitlin Clark rejects $400 million deal from Nike” saying “not with that Kaepernick clown.’” (Facebook Post, 2024-06-21)
Evidence (2023-09-07): Caitlin Clark Is Soaring Again: Rookie Reasserts Superstar Status [...] This School Didn’t Want Caitlin Clark. Now It Has to Face Her. [...] Caitlin Clark Finally Overcame Her Basketball Nemesis. Now Comes the Hard Part.
Claim: California Assembly Bill 1955 “would allow schools to secretly, socially and perhaps medically transition your child without your knowledge and consent." (Instagram post, 2024-06-16)
Evidence (2024-06-16): California’s Senate passed Assembly Bill 1955, which blocks school districts from enacting policies that require staff to notify parents about students’ sexual orientation or gender identity. To become law, the bill would have to pass the state’s Assembly and be signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom. The bill says schools should be supportive and affirming of students; it doesn’t require school staff to encourage or assist in a child’s gender transition, legal experts said.
Claim: California Assembly Bill 1955 “would allow schools to secretly, socially and perhaps medically transition your child without your knowledge and consent." (Instagram post, 2024-06-16)
Evidence (2024-07-16): SACRAMENTO – Gov. Gavin Newsom has signed into law Assembly Bill 1955, a bill that takes the unprecedented and outrageous step of instructing school districts to lie to and keep secrets from parents about their own children. Introduced by Assemblyman Chris Ward (D-San Diego), AB 1955 was pushed through the legislature as a "gut and amend" bill — outside of the normal legislative calendar — to invalidate the popular parental notification policies enacted by local school boards across the state. The policies require school administrators to inform parents if their child changes their name or gender on official school records. [...] AB 1955 also opens the door to child exploitation. Creating a culture of secrecy from parents at school will lead to unsafe school environments where predators are able to more easily groom vulnerable children. Ward and other AB 1955 sponsors have disingenuously defended their bill as needed to protect students from "forced outing" to unaccepting and abusive parents.
Claim: California Assembly Bill 1955 “would allow schools to secretly, socially and perhaps medically transition your child without your knowledge and consent." (Instagram post, 2024-06-16)
Evidence (2024-07-17): The lawsuit filed Tuesday by the Chino Valley Unified School District alleges that Assembly Bill 1955 — which Newsom signed into law Monday and will take effect Jan. 1 of next year — violates the constitutional rights of parents to due process and freedom of religion. It seeks a court judgment declaring that the new law is a violation of parents' rights under the Fourteenth and First Amendments and an order that would temporarily stop the state government from enforcing the law. [...] "Each of the Parent Plaintiffs objects on both conscience and religious grounds to their public schools withholding information about changes to their child's gender identity from them and seek declaratory and injunctive relief preventing AB 1955 from being enforced against their child or children," the court filings state. [...] AB 1955 states that it seeks to protect children on choosing when and how to "come out," describing such moves as "deeply personal decisions." The new law also requires the state's Department of Education to give parents and children resources on how to "manage conversations about gender and identity privately."
Claim: California Assembly Bill 1955 “would allow schools to secretly, socially and perhaps medically transition your child without your knowledge and consent." (Instagram post, 2024-06-16)
Evidence (2024-07-18): Assembly Bill 1955 authored by Assemblymember Chris Ward (D-San Diego), has drawn the ire of prominent conservatives. Elon Musk blamed the law in part for his decision to move SpaceX’s and X’s headquarters from California to Texas. The argument in the California Legislature over the bill was chaotic and emotional. Democrats claimed AB 1955 was important for protecting LGBTQ+ youth, and Republicans countered that it infringed on the student-parent relationship. [...] The American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California disagrees, saying AB 1955 would "strengthen protections against forced outings of LGBTQ+ students in schools."
Claim: California Assembly Bill 1955 “would allow schools to secretly, socially and perhaps medically transition your child without your knowledge and consent." (Instagram post, 2024-06-16)
Evidence (2024-07-15): - Mike Blount - Communications Director - (916) 812-6984 - mike.blount@asm.ca.gov (SACRAMENTO, CA) – Today, the Support Academic Futures & Educators for Today’s Youth (SAFETY) Act was signed into law, further solidifying California's commitment to providing a safe and supportive learning environment for all students regardless of gender identity. This life-saving legislation, AB 1955, introduced by Assemblymember Chris Ward (D-San Diego) and the California Legislative LGBTQ Caucus, came in response to policies in several school districts that have sought to forcibly out students. [...] "Today is a great day for California," said California Legislative LGBTQ Caucus Chair Susan Eggman. "With the Governor’s signature on AB 1955, a first in the nation policy, reaffirms California’s position as a leader and safe haven for LGBTQ+ youth everywhere. I am incredibly proud of our LGBTQ Caucus, and Assemblymember Ward in particular, for their leadership on this life-saving legislation. I am also deeply grateful for all the parents, teachers, youth, LGBTQ+ leaders, and so many other groups who came together to support this bill. Their support reaffirmed what this caucus already knew: Safe and supportive schools for all our children should be our top priority. And at the end of the day that’s what this bill does, ensures our K-12 campuses remain safe and affirming places for our youth no matter how they identify."
Claim: California Assembly Bill 1955 “would allow schools to secretly, socially and perhaps medically transition your child without your knowledge and consent." (Instagram post, 2024-06-16)
Evidence (2024-05-24): AB 1955, known as The Safety Act, was introduced by Assemblyman Chris Ward, along with the California Legislative LGBTQ Caucus, on Wednesday, according to a report by KMPH in Fresno. The bill was introduced following reports of students being outed by school staff, sometimes leading to familial rejection or even violence. "I am proud to stand up for our LGBTQ youth and introduce #AB1955 The SAFETY Act," Ward wrote on X, formerly Twitter, on Thursday. "Teachers should not be the gender police and violate the trust and safety of the students in their classrooms. This bill will ensure all students have a safe and supportive environment to learn, regardless of their gender identity." Supporters of the bill argue that outing students without their consent can lead to severe mental health issues, including depression and anxiety, and in extreme cases, homelessness or self-harm. Advocacy groups like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Equality California have voiced strong support for the measure.
Claim: California Assembly Bill 1955 “would allow schools to secretly, socially and perhaps medically transition your child without your knowledge and consent." (Instagram post, 2024-06-16)
Evidence (2024-10-04): Assembly Bill 1955 — written by Assemblymember Chris Ward, a San Diego Democrat and member of the LGBTQ caucus — has three main components. It restricts school employees from revealing details about a student’s sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression without that student’s consent. It prohibits school districts from making policies that require such disclosure. And it bars school districts from punishing employees who support a student’s rights. [...] The bill has remained controversial throughout its journey in the Legislature. Supporters have said LGBTQ youth need protection. One Assembly member emotionally described how his mother told him, at age 7, that she’d disown him if he was gay. [...] "With the governor’s signature on AB 1955, a first-in-the-nation policy, reaffirms California’s position as a leader and safe haven for LGBTQ+ youth everywhere," state Senator and LGBTQ caucus chair Susan Eggman, a Stockton Democrat, said in a statement. "I am also deeply grateful for all the parents, teachers, youth, LGBTQ+ leaders, and so many other groups who came together to support this bill. Their support reaffirmed what this caucus already knew: Safe and supportive schools for all our children should be our top priority."
Claim: California Assembly Bill 1955 “would allow schools to secretly, socially and perhaps medically transition your child without your knowledge and consent." (Instagram post, 2024-06-16)
Evidence (2024-09-18): On July 15, Governor Newsom signed AB 1955 into law. This law is an attack on fundamental parental rights. It prevents school districts from requiring parental notification if their child begins to exhibit gender confusion, such as by requesting to be called by a name and pronoun of the opposite sex. The law does not set an age limit—schools cannot notify parents even if preschoolers are being socially "transitioned." It also prevents schools from disciplining employees who are initiating or facilitating social "transitioning," which courts have recognized is a type of medical intervention or treatment that medical professionals have recognized can inflict serious short-term and long-term harm. This law violates the 14th Amendment, which guarantees the rights of parents to make decisions about their minor children regarding all medical treatment—in this case, social "transitioning." Fit parents are presumed to act in the best interest of their child. The government cannot intervene in their relationship simply because it does not like the parents’ decision. Whether a child socially "transitions" or announces their sexuality is a personal and private issue, not an educational issue or one to be decided by the government. The State of California is thus intruding in a very personal, private matter—communication on one of the most intimate of topics between a parent and child—in violation of the U.S. Constitution.
Claim: California Assembly Bill 1955 “would allow schools to secretly, socially and perhaps medically transition your child without your knowledge and consent." (Instagram post, 2024-06-16)
Evidence (2024-06-21): Would California bill AB 1955 ban schools and teachers from notifying parents if their child modifies their gender identity? No, that's not true: The bill prevents teachers from being forced to notify parents of their child's preferred pronouns, the state senator who co-authored the bill told Lead Stories. According to the bill, teachers can notify the parents with the student's permission. [...] Assembly Bill 1955 (archived here), the Support Academic Futures & Educators for Today's Youth Act (SAFETY Act), says schools and their staff, as well as school districts and their staff, cannot be required to inform parents about their child's gender identity without the child's consent. It does not bar them from doing so; they are allowed to do so if the child consents. [...] Forced outing policies in California presented a very clear and present danger to many queer youth in the state. Even deep into the 21st Century, children are still sometimes disowned and abused because of expressions or even suspicions of their sexual orientation and gender identity. What AB 1955 does is prevent the compelled speech of teachers to out students to their parents. Additionally, it ensures that teachers cannot be fired for supporting a student in their right to not be discriminated against simply for who they are. This bill addresses the rare scenario where a child is out to the school and not their parents. It gives these queer youth the option to come out on their own terms, preventing them from the harm that would occur had they been forced out.
Claim: California Assembly Bill 1955 “would allow schools to secretly, socially and perhaps medically transition your child without your knowledge and consent." (Instagram post, 2024-06-16)
Evidence (2024-10-06): - ^ "California AB1955 | 2023-2024 | Regular Session". LegiScan. Retrieved 2024-09-01. [...] - ^ a b "Newsom Signs AB 1955 and Okays Schools Lying to Parents, Opening the Door to Lawsuits and Child Exploitation". California Policy Center. 2024-07-16. Retrieved 2024-08-31. [...] - ^ "AB 1955 – Support Academic Futures & Educators for Today's Youth (SAFETY) Act" (PDF). California Legislative LGBTQ Caucus. 2024-05-22. Retrieved 2024-09-01.