copenlu/druid huggingface dataset:
Claim: The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals “just ruled Covid vax mandates unconstitutional.” (Robert F. Kennedy Jr., 2024-06-12)
Evidence (2022-02-07): Status: Vaccine mandate on private employers with 100 or more employees rescinded after United States Supreme Court blocked its enforcement Attorney General Paxton and several allied states and companies sued the Biden Administration for its illegal and unconstitutional vaccine mandate imposed on private businesses. As part of his COVID-19 Action Plan announced in early September 2021, President Biden committed to requiring all private employers in America with 100 or more employees to force their employees to get vaccinated or submit to a weekly testing regime at their expense. Attorney General Paxton obtained a court order from the Fifth Circuit blocking enforcement of the mandate. Texas’ case was then grouped with other similar challenges in other states. The United States Supreme Court ultimately agreed that enforcement of the mandate should continue to be blocked, holding OSHA lacked authority to compel vaccine mandates through an "emergency temporary standard." After this ruling, and after Attorney General Paxton joined twenty-five other states requesting that the Biden Administration withdraw this unconstitutional mandate and pursue it no further, the mandate was withdrawn and all cases filed to block it were dismissed.
Claim: The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals “just ruled Covid vax mandates unconstitutional.” (Robert F. Kennedy Jr., 2024-06-12)
Evidence (2024-05-19): QUICK LOOK - The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals found the COVID-19 mandates imposed by the University of Colorado Anschutz School of Medicine unconstitutional on May 7th. [...] The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the University of Colorado’s expansive COVID-19 vaccine mandate unconstitutional earlier this month, calling it "religious animus." [...] The plaintiffs argued Anschutz violated their First Amendment rights by selectively denying their religious objection to the COVID-19 vaccine.
Claim: The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals “just ruled Covid vax mandates unconstitutional.” (Robert F. Kennedy Jr., 2024-06-12)
Evidence (2024-06-10): Even though Los Angeles Unified dropped its COVID vaccine mandate for school staff almost a year ago, a lawsuit accusing the district of violating workers’ rights can still move forward, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Friday. The 2-1 ruling by a pair of federal judges appointed by former President Donald Trump revives a case that a lower court had dismissed. It also counters recent rulings by courts — including the 9th Circuit — that tossed lawsuits challenging expired COVID-19 rules on the grounds that the policies were no longer in effect. [...] In 2022, a 9th Circuit panel of 11 judges ruled that a lawsuit against Gov. Gavin Newsom over COVID-related school closures couldn’t move forward since schools had reopened and "there was no longer a live controversy." Another ruling, last month in a California state appeals court, drew a similar conclusion in a lawsuit against Newsom over COVID safety guidelines.
Claim: The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals “just ruled Covid vax mandates unconstitutional.” (Robert F. Kennedy Jr., 2024-06-12)
Evidence (2022-09-07): As of January 2022, the federal government has issued a series of COVID-19 vaccine mandates affecting federal contractors, private sector employees, healthcare workers, and Head Start Programs. [...] Following the victory of Tennessee and 26 other states at the U.S. Supreme Court, OSHA agreed to withdraw the ETS vaccine mandate. OSHA is instead treating this as a proposed rule subject to the normal notice-and-comment rulemaking process. The rule is not in force during the notice-and-comment process. [...] The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denies the federal government’s request to stay the district court’s injunction of the vaccine mandate for federal contractors in Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee.
Claim: The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals “just ruled Covid vax mandates unconstitutional.” (Robert F. Kennedy Jr., 2024-06-12)
Evidence (2021-08-13): The constitutional issues related to Covid-19 mask mandates [...] However, some mask mandate opponents have made arguments that even state-issued mask mandates violate the federal constitution’s First Amendment. One argument that has been upheld by the federal courts, including the Supreme Court, is that religious activity within buildings is protected under the Constitution’s Free Exercise clause. In April 2021, a divided Supreme Court said in Tandon v. Newsom that the state of California could not apply Covid-19 restrictions to an at-home Bible study group that had more than three households meeting in the same room, in violation of a state regulation. The court noted California permitted larger gatherings in retail stores and other venues. [...] In July 2020, a court in Palm Beach, Florida, refused to block a mask mandate ordered by county commissioners; the litigants claimed that the mandate violated their personal freedoms and privacy rights. State Circuit Court Judge John S. Kastrenakes concluded that "the right to be free from governmental intrusion does not automatically or completely shield an individual's conduct from regulation." Kastrenakes also cited the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905), arguing that it permitted a local government to impose a vaccine mandate during a public emergency.
Claim: The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals “just ruled Covid vax mandates unconstitutional.” (Robert F. Kennedy Jr., 2024-06-12)
Evidence (2022-02-03): The Court did not rule on the constitutionality of the ETS but agreed that the stay of its enforcement was warranted until the merits could be argued in the Sixth Circuit. Before the merits could be reached, however, on January 26, 2022, OSHA formally withdrew the ETS as a temporary standard. In its statement on the status of the ETS, OSHA emphasized that it was only withdrawing the ETS as a temporary standard, but keeping it in place as a proposed rule, with the agency "prioritizing its resources to focus on finalizing a permanent COVID-19 Healthcare Standard." [...] On December 7, 2021, the District Court for the Southern District of Georgia issued a nationwide stay of enforcement and implementation of the vaccine mandate for federal contractors and subcontractors established by Executive Order 14042. Separate injunctions have also been issued in Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, and Florida, staying enforcement of the mandate on a local scale, with Florida also explicitly prohibiting enforcement of the masking and physical distancing requirements. Appeals are pending for each of these injunctions, but with requests for expedited review denied across the board, the mandate will remain unenforceable for at least several more months.
Claim: The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals “just ruled Covid vax mandates unconstitutional.” (Robert F. Kennedy Jr., 2024-06-12)
Evidence (2024-09-05): 9th Circuit Rules Against LAUSD Vaccine Mandate Today, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal issued an amazing ruling, reopening a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of COVID-era vaccine mandates. [...] Was the Vaccine Mandate Constitutional?
Claim: The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals “just ruled Covid vax mandates unconstitutional.” (Robert F. Kennedy Jr., 2024-06-12)
Evidence (2024-06-11): Courts recently have tossed lawsuits challenging expired COVID-19 rules. A panel on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals restored a case against the Los Angeles Unified School District, allowing employees to sue to prevent future vaccine mandates. [...] Even though Los Angeles Unified dropped its COVID vaccine mandate for school staff almost a year ago, a lawsuit accusing the district of violating workers’ rights can still move forward, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Friday. The 2-1 ruling by a pair of federal judges appointed by former President Donald Trump revives a case that a lower court had dismissed. It also counters recent rulings by courts — including the 9th Circuit — that tossed lawsuits challenging expired COVID-19 rules on the grounds that the policies were no longer in effect.
Claim: The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals “just ruled Covid vax mandates unconstitutional.” (Robert F. Kennedy Jr., 2024-06-12)
Evidence (2024-06-12): RFK Jr. claimed the 9th Circuit ruled vaccine mandates unconstitutional. That’s False. [...] "The ranks of the conspiracy theorists now include the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which just ruled Covid vax mandates unconstitutional because the vaccine does not stop transmission," Kennedy wrote in a June 12 Facebook post. "I dunno, maybe it’s the brain worm, but I seem to remember the experts and authorities telling us otherwise." [...] The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 to vacate a lower court’s dismissal of the vaccine mandate lawsuit; it did not rule on whether a vaccine mandate is constitutional.
Claim: The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals “just ruled Covid vax mandates unconstitutional.” (Robert F. Kennedy Jr., 2024-06-12)
Evidence (2024-06-24): In the Media - Obama Care Case Mandate Shifts After Appeals Decision, Bloomberg Law (June 24, 2024) • Surgeon General Calls for Warning Label on Social Media, WBAL Radio Live Drive-time (June 18, 2024) Radio. • The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals "just Ruled Covid vax mandates unconstitutional," PoliFact, (June 18, 2024)
Claim: The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals “just ruled Covid vax mandates unconstitutional.” (Robert F. Kennedy Jr., 2024-06-12)
Evidence (2024-06-25): A federal appeals court has revived a lawsuit against the Los Angeles Unified School District for its now-rescinded COVID-19 vaccine requirement. The court said the case should be allowed to develop beyond the preliminary arguments. But anti-vaccination activists have twisted the opinion to falsely claim the court had "declared that the mRNA covid jab is NOT a vaccine." [...] The nonprofit organization, called the Health Freedom Defense Fund, argued that COVID-19 vaccines are not actually vaccines, but are instead "medical treatments," and cannot be mandated. The group argued that the COVID-19 vaccines don’t prevent transmission of the disease, but rather just reduce its severity in those who are infected – making "the injection … a treatment, not a vaccine." [...] But conspiracy theorists and anti-vaccination influencers on social media have misrepresented the opinion from the appeals court to falsely claim that it had "declared that the mRNA covid jab is NOT a vaccine."
Claim: The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals “just ruled Covid vax mandates unconstitutional.” (Robert F. Kennedy Jr., 2024-06-12)
Evidence (2024-08-26): On June 7, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a lower court’s decision to dismiss a lawsuit from Los Angeles school employees who opposed COVID-19 vaccination mandates. But legal experts who follow vaccination and health law told PolitiFact in June that the appeals court did not rule on whether a vaccine mandate is constitutional, as Kennedy had said in a June 12 Facebook post.
Claim: "Apple is … about to start charging us to use the FaceTime feature.” (Threads post, 2024-06-17)
Evidence (2024-06-17): Apple doesn’t charge a fee to use its popular FaceTime feature on iPhones, iPads and Macs, and has not announced plans to start charging users.
Claim: "Apple is … about to start charging us to use the FaceTime feature.” (Threads post, 2024-06-17)
Evidence (2024-06-25): FACT CHECK: Did Apple Start Charging For The Use Of FaceTime? [...] A post shared on Threads alleges that Apple will start charging for use of Facetime. The post shared the information in text, with no source. The post reads, "Apple is really about to start charging us to use the FaceTime feature , wild."
Claim: "Apple is … about to start charging us to use the FaceTime feature.” (Threads post, 2024-06-17)
Evidence (2023-09-15): The Messages app has had reactions that trigger with certain words for some time now, and in iOS 17, Apple is bringing reactions to FaceTime. Rather than being triggered by words, though, the reactions are triggered by gestures. [...] FaceTime on Apple TV With iOS 17 and tvOS 17, you can use FaceTime on the Apple TV. There's a new FaceTime app on tvOS 17, but to use it, you need an iPhone running iOS 17 or an iPad running iPadOS 17 to serve as the camera because the Apple TV doesn't have its own camera.
Claim: "Apple is … about to start charging us to use the FaceTime feature.” (Threads post, 2024-06-17)
Evidence (2023-03-02): The service was only available at the time of this writing in Australia and New Zealand. For years, we've fact-checked claims about Facebook charging money for people to use the platform.
Claim: "Apple is … about to start charging us to use the FaceTime feature.” (Threads post, 2024-06-17)
Evidence (2024-05-07): FaceTime here, there, and everywhere. With FaceTime, you can see what everyone’s up to no matter which device they’re using — iPad, iPhone, iPod touch, or Mac. All it takes is a tap, a smile, and a laugh. [...] Your FaceTime calls are getting the HD treatment. Now FaceTime for Mac supports video calls up to 720p. All you need is an iMac, MacBook Pro, or MacBook Air with a built-in FaceTime HD camera, and your calls display with next-best-thing-to-real-life clarity. The FaceTime HD camera also supports a widescreen 16:9 aspect ratio, so Mom, Dad, Grandma, your best friend, and even the dog can gather around for a video call.
Claim: "Apple is … about to start charging us to use the FaceTime feature.” (Threads post, 2024-06-17)
Evidence (2024-03-26): Use FaceTime on iOS devices [...] Use FaceTime on your Mac You can use FaceTime on your Mac to make video and audio calls, easily create a link to invite others to a call, change your microphone and camera modes, and more.
Claim: "Apple is … about to start charging us to use the FaceTime feature.” (Threads post, 2024-06-17)
Evidence (2020-03-20): Using FaceTime is pretty identical on both iPhone and iPad - which makes sense given that they use nearly identical software. Apple only released the iPadOS fork last year, and it’s still pretty identical to iOS 13, so accessing this voice chat feature is going to be the same on either one - but we’ll point out the differences below. To access FaceTime, just find the app - at the time of writing, the icon looks like a white movie camera inset in a green square - and tap to open it. You can use it to make audio or video calls. [...] To FaceTime someone (it’s been verbed), tap the FaceTime app to open it. Tap the ‘plus’ icon in the top right and search for a contact by typing their name, email address, or phone number. Tap one and you’ll be prompted to start an audio or video call.
Claim: "Apple is … about to start charging us to use the FaceTime feature.” (Threads post, 2024-06-17)
Evidence (2017-04-19): When you enable FaceTime it sends an SMS to an Apple server in the UK to activate the service. Normally carriers that support the iPhone do not charge for this SMS. However, your carrier may not participate, in which case using FaceTime can get to be expensive, because it periodically updates that server with a new SMS. FaceTime is a free service from Apple. It requires an internet data connection, either wifi or cellular. If the data connection is free, there are no charges at all. If a carrier or wifi provider charges you to use their data connection, then charges will apply (to the internet connection provider, not to Apple). The same thing applies for Apple's free iMessage service. [...] This has nothing to do with whether FaceTime uses data over cellular or WiFi. This refers to the activation process when you enable FaceTime. The message means that enabling FaceTime will involve an SMS - actually an International SMS - to activate the service in Apple's servers, and this specific carrier may charge for that International SMS. As it's international, it will be expensive - probably 50 cents per message or more. And this charge will appear every few days as FaceTime reactivates with Apple's servers.
Claim: "Apple is … about to start charging us to use the FaceTime feature.” (Threads post, 2024-06-17)
Evidence (2024-09-16): If you're using an iPhone, you need SMS messaging to activate your phone number with iMessage and FaceTime. Depending on your carrier, you might be charged for this SMS. If a prompt appears stating "Your network provider may charge for SMS messages used to activate FaceTime and iMessage", tap "Turn On" to allow possible SMS charges. [...] To select your email address to use with FaceTime:
Claim: "Apple is … about to start charging us to use the FaceTime feature.” (Threads post, 2024-06-17)
Evidence (2017-09-06): From what I've read so far, it seems like VIDEO FaceTime will be free for both parties, other than: [...] If you change to audio-only then it may become a regular phone call for both parties, which will typically be free within the same country but extremely expensive between two different countries. Is the above correct? I want to FaceTime my friend in China but I was worried about paying a huge rate. However if the above is correct then we should be OK as long as we are using video. See The Telegraph's Why did my FaceTime calls to Switzerland cost £144? suggests downgrading to audio can hurt, but I am not sure if the article is accurate.
Claim: "Apple is … about to start charging us to use the FaceTime feature.” (Threads post, 2024-06-17)
Evidence (2024-09-16): Use FaceTime on Mac FaceTime makes it easy to have a video or audio call. All you need is a broadband internet connection and a built-in or connected microphone and camera. [...] Join a call using a FaceTime link
Claim: "Apple is … about to start charging us to use the FaceTime feature.” (Threads post, 2024-06-17)
Evidence (2024-06-20): Did Apple announce plans in June 2024 to start charging a fee for using its FaceTime feature, as a post on social media claims? No, that's not true: Apple hasn't announced any plans to charge for FaceTime. It remains a free feature for all users on compatible Apple mobile devices, including versions of the iPhone, iPad Pro, iPad, iPad mini and iPad touch, as Apple customer service confirmed to Lead Stories. [...] The part of the conversation between Apple support and Lead Stories about the purported FaceTime charges appears below: [...] Lead Stories searched using keywords on Google News, visible here (archived here), and found no credible documents or reporting as of June 19, 2024, to corroborate the claim that "Apple announced plans in June 2024 to start charging a fee for using FaceTime.
Claim: "Apple is … about to start charging us to use the FaceTime feature.” (Threads post, 2024-06-17)
Evidence (2024-02-02): The truth is, FaceTime uses your device’s internet connection, so as long as you’re connected to Wi-Fi or have a sufficient data plan, there’s no extra charge to use FaceTime. However, if you’re using FaceTime over a cellular network, it will use your data allowance, which could result in additional charges depending on your phone plan. In this article, we’ll go over how to use FaceTime and avoid any unexpected costs. [...] - Remember that international FaceTime calls do not incur additional charges beyond regular data usage. [...] In conclusion, using FaceTime on your iPhone doesn’t have to cost you extra. With a bit of planning and awareness of your data usage, you can enjoy seamless video and audio calls with your loved ones at no additional charge. Remember to connect to Wi-Fi whenever possible, monitor your data usage, and check your data plan details to avoid any surprises on your phone bill.
Claim: "Apple is … about to start charging us to use the FaceTime feature.” (Threads post, 2024-06-17)
Evidence (2024-10-04): Use FaceTime with your iPhone or iPad [...] You can use FaceTime over Wi-Fi1 or over cellular on supported iOS or iPadOS devices.2 FaceTime isn't available or might not appear on devices purchased in United Arab Emirates. Group FaceTime and FaceTime Audio are not available in China mainland on iPhone and iPad with cellular. [...] Tap FaceTime, then tap Use your Apple Account for FaceTime.
Claim: "Apple is … about to start charging us to use the FaceTime feature.” (Threads post, 2024-06-17)
Evidence (2024-03-26): Learn how to use the FaceTime app to visit face-to-face with friends and family—over Wi-Fi or cellular. In a FaceTime call, you can also watch TV shows and movies, listen to music, and even work out together. To get started with FaceTime, go to Settings > Apps > FaceTime, then sign in to your Apple Account or turn on FaceTime. If more than one contact method appears below "You can be reached by FaceTime at," you can tap to select or deselect it. [...] Use the FaceTime controls
Claim: "Apple is … about to start charging us to use the FaceTime feature.” (Threads post, 2024-06-17)
Evidence (2023-06-27): iOS 17 FaceTime — the biggest changes coming to your iPhone [...] FaceTime changed the way we interact with people, but it hasn’t always received the same level of attention as other features on the iPhone with Apple's annual software updates. That's changing with iOS 17, which is adding new enhancements and features that make FaceTime calls more functional than ever before. We’re talking about stuff beyond just you being able to video chat with your cat to tell them about your day at work. Most importantly, however, FaceTime is finally coming to a living room near you — ushering a new era of how people stay in touch with each other.
Claim: "Apple is … about to start charging us to use the FaceTime feature.” (Threads post, 2024-06-17)
Evidence (2024-09-26): Use FaceTime with your iPhone or iPad [...] You can use FaceTime over Wi-Fi1 or over mobile data on supported iOS or iPadOS devices.2 FaceTime isn’t available or may not appear on devices purchased in United Arab Emirates. Group FaceTime and FaceTime Audio are not available in China mainland on iPhone and iPad (Wi-Fi + Cellular) models. [...] Tap FaceTime, then tap Use your Apple Account for FaceTime.
Claim: "Apple is … about to start charging us to use the FaceTime feature.” (Threads post, 2024-06-17)
Evidence (2024-09-08): FaceTime is included for free in iOS and macOS from Mac OS X Lion (10.7) onwards.[1] Since the release of iOS 15, iPadOS 15, and macOS Monterey, non-Apple systems can be used to participate in FaceTime calls using a web client.[2] [...] On February 24, 2011, FaceTime left beta and was listed in the Mac App Store for US$0.99. Apple claims that it intended to provide the application free of charge, however, a provision of the Sarbanes–Oxley Act (2002) bars companies from providing an unadvertised new feature of an already-sold product without enduring "onerous accounting measures".[5] The US$0.99 beta is no longer available for download from Apple.[6] FaceTime is included for free in macOS from Mac OS X Lion (10.7) onwards and iOS.[1] [...] - ^ Macgasm (February 24, 2011). "Apple charges for FaceTime". Archived from the original on February 27, 2011. Retrieved February 24, 2011.
Claim: "Apple is … about to start charging us to use the FaceTime feature.” (Threads post, 2024-06-17)
Evidence (2024-06-16): Apple has not announced plans to charge FaceTime users, despite social media claim [...] "Apple is really about to start charging us to use the FaceTime feature, wild," a June 16 Threads post said. [...] The claim that Apple is planning to charge users for its FaceTime feature is False.
Claim: "Apple is … about to start charging us to use the FaceTime feature.” (Threads post, 2024-06-17)
Evidence (2024-06-20): The claim: Apple plans to start charging users for FaceTime [...] "Apple is really about to start charging us to use the FaceTime feature, wild," reads the post. [...] No evidence Apple to start charging FaceTime users