Datasets:

---

tingchih

/

EM

like 0

Pennsylvania has 20,000 dead persons listed on its election rolls, which is evidence of massive voter fraud in 2020.

Contradiction

Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. Among the many tweets issued by U.S. President Donald Trump in mid-November 2020, as he desperately scrambled to find a way to negate the results of the recent election that had voted him out of office, was a claim that the state of Pennsylvania (which he narrowly lost to challenger Joe Biden) had '20,000 dead people on [its] voters roll' and that this fact was 'evidence of voter fraud': 'Evidence of voter fraud continues to grow, including 20,000 dead people on the Pennsylvania voters roll and many thousands all over the Country. Now, there has been an artificial number of votes in favor of Joe Biden.' @OANN - Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 19, 2020 The 'dead voter' issue comes up every election year, without much merit, for two simple reasons: 1) People who have passed away are unable (for obvious reasons) to notify election officials that they are now dead and ask to be removed from the voter rolls, so election boards have to obtain information about deceased voters through other means and manually remove their registrations. This process remains a cumbersome and slow one in most locations, and consequently every state voter roll carries numerous active registrations for voters who have since died. 2) Many voter registrations have been transferred from paper to modern databases, but some of the original paper records did not have complete information for all the fields used in those databases. When information such as a birth date is lacking, it's not uncommon for a placeholder value such as '1/1/1900' to be entered into that field. This practice creates situations in which some registered voters appear to be impossibly old (i.e., dead) but are in fact of reasonable age and still alive. Neither of these phenomena is in itself evidence of voter fraud. Voter fraud only takes place if and when someone actually votes using the identity of a dead person, a form of fraud that is exceedingly rare and has not been documented as occurring in Pennsylvania in the 2020 election. The specific claim about Pennsylvania stemmed from a lawsuit filed against Pennsylvania Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar in October 2020 by the Public Interest Legal Foundation (an organization whom we have previously reported worked to 'generate, create, organize and weaponize' misleading narratives about voting fraud). As The New York Times reported of that lawsuit: The suit accuses Ms. Boockvar, a Democrat, of improperly including 21,206 supposedly deceased Pennsylvanians on voter rolls. The group asked for an injunction to stop the dead people from voting in the election. On Oct. 20, the court's chief judge, John E. Jones III, who has the case, said he was doubtful of the suit. He noted in a ruling that the Public Interest Legal Foundation was asking the court to accept its findings that dead people were on the voter rolls but said, 'We cannot and will not take plaintiff's word for it - in an election where every vote matters, we will not disenfranchise potentially eligible voters based solely upon the allegations of a private foundation.' A spokeswoman for the Pennsylvania attorney general's office said: 'The court found no deficiency in how Pennsylvania maintains its voter rolls. There is currently no proof provided that any deceased person has voted in the 2020 election.' Dead people whose identities were used to vote appear to be a popular subject for those who are spreading unsubstantiated claims of fraud about the election. In short, Pennsylvania certainly has some indeterminate number of deceased former residents on its voter rolls. But the existence of those records is not evidence that voter fraud has occurred, nor has any evidence been produced documenting that any related fraud did in fact take place in Pennsylvania.

In short, Pennsylvania certainly has some indeterminate number of deceased former residents on its voter rolls. But the existence of those records is not evidence that voter fraud has occurred, nor has any evidence been produced documenting that any related fraud did in fact take place in Pennsylvania.

Pennsylvania has 20,000 dead persons listed on its election rolls, which is evidence of massive voter fraud in 2020.

Contradiction

Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. Among the many tweets issued by U.S. President Donald Trump in mid-November 2020, as he desperately scrambled to find a way to negate the results of the recent election that had voted him out of office, was a claim that the state of Pennsylvania (which he narrowly lost to challenger Joe Biden) had '20,000 dead people on [its] voters roll' and that this fact was 'evidence of voter fraud': 'Evidence of voter fraud continues to grow, including 20,000 dead people on the Pennsylvania voters roll and many thousands all over the Country. Now, there has been an artificial number of votes in favor of Joe Biden.' @OANN - Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 19, 2020 The 'dead voter' issue comes up every election year, without much merit, for two simple reasons: 1) People who have passed away are unable (for obvious reasons) to notify election officials that they are now dead and ask to be removed from the voter rolls, so election boards have to obtain information about deceased voters through other means and manually remove their registrations. This process remains a cumbersome and slow one in most locations, and consequently every state voter roll carries numerous active registrations for voters who have since died. 2) Many voter registrations have been transferred from paper to modern databases, but some of the original paper records did not have complete information for all the fields used in those databases. When information such as a birth date is lacking, it's not uncommon for a placeholder value such as '1/1/1900' to be entered into that field. This practice creates situations in which some registered voters appear to be impossibly old (i.e., dead) but are in fact of reasonable age and still alive. Neither of these phenomena is in itself evidence of voter fraud. Voter fraud only takes place if and when someone actually votes using the identity of a dead person, a form of fraud that is exceedingly rare and has not been documented as occurring in Pennsylvania in the 2020 election. The specific claim about Pennsylvania stemmed from a lawsuit filed against Pennsylvania Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar in October 2020 by the Public Interest Legal Foundation (an organization whom we have previously reported worked to 'generate, create, organize and weaponize' misleading narratives about voting fraud). As The New York Times reported of that lawsuit: The suit accuses Ms. Boockvar, a Democrat, of improperly including 21,206 supposedly deceased Pennsylvanians on voter rolls. The group asked for an injunction to stop the dead people from voting in the election. On Oct. 20, the court's chief judge, John E. Jones III, who has the case, said he was doubtful of the suit. He noted in a ruling that the Public Interest Legal Foundation was asking the court to accept its findings that dead people were on the voter rolls but said, 'We cannot and will not take plaintiff's word for it - in an election where every vote matters, we will not disenfranchise potentially eligible voters based solely upon the allegations of a private foundation.' A spokeswoman for the Pennsylvania attorney general's office said: 'The court found no deficiency in how Pennsylvania maintains its voter rolls. There is currently no proof provided that any deceased person has voted in the 2020 election.' Dead people whose identities were used to vote appear to be a popular subject for those who are spreading unsubstantiated claims of fraud about the election. In short, Pennsylvania certainly has some indeterminate number of deceased former residents on its voter rolls. But the existence of those records is not evidence that voter fraud has occurred, nor has any evidence been produced documenting that any related fraud did in fact take place in Pennsylvania.

In short, Pennsylvania certainly has some indeterminate number of deceased former residents on its voter rolls. But the existence of those records is not evidence that voter fraud has occurred, nor has any evidence been produced documenting that any related fraud did in fact take place in Pennsylvania.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez neglected to vote for her own 'Green New Deal' resolution, which was defeated without receiving a single vote in favor.

Contradiction

On 7 February 2019, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Rep. Edward Markey of Massachusetts, both Democrats, introduced a five-page nonbinding resolution to the U.S. House of Representatives for federal government to recognize its duty to establish a 'Green New Deal.' The controversial proposal incorporated seven goals previously articulated by Ocasio-Cortez for the U.S. to realize within ten years: Dramatically expand existing renewable power sources and deploy new production capacity with the goal of meeting 100% of national power demand through renewable sources; building a national, energy-efficient, 'smart' grid; upgrading every residential and industrial building for state-of-the-art energy efficiency, comfort and safety; eliminating greenhouse gas emissions from the manufacturing, agricultural and other industries, including by investing in local-scale agriculture in communities across the country; eliminating greenhouse gas emissions from, repairing and improving transportation and other infrastructure, and upgrading water infrastructure to ensure universal access to clean water; funding massive investment in the drawdown of greenhouse gases; making 'green' technology, industry, expertise, products and services a major export of the United States, with the aim of becoming the undisputed international leader in helping other countries transition to completely greenhouse gas neutral economies and bringing about a global Green New Deal. The broader proposal also called for sweeping social measures such as 'a job guarantee program to assure a living wage job to every person who wants one,' 'basic income programs' and 'universal health care programs.' On 26 March 2019, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell forced a preemptive vote in the U.S. Senate on a procedural motion to take up a binding form of the resolution, deriding the Green New Deal as a plan for 'basically outlawing the only sources of energy that working-class and middle-class families can actually afford' that would 'kill off entire domestic industries' and eliminate millions of jobs. Democrats criticized McConnell's move as a 'sham' intended to 'quash debate by blocking public hearings and expert testimony about the consequences of inaction on climate change' and to hasten a vote in order to force Senate Democrats to commit to either supporting or rejecting the proposal at a very early stage: Republicans ... set up this vote to highlight potential splits in the Democratic caucus and force lawmakers to splinter from a high-profile, progressive idea. As the thinking goes, if only part of the Democratic caucus wound up backing the idea, Republicans could argue that it didn't actually have enough support from the party ... Additionally, the move was aimed at putting Democrats from more moderate states in a tough position, forcing them to choose between backing a popular liberal idea and potentially turning off some of their constituents. 'The Senate vote is a perfect example of that kind of superficial approach to government,' Ocasio-Cortez said. 'What McConnell's doing is that he's trying to rush this bill to the floor without a hearing, without any markups, without working through committee - because he doesn't want to save our planet. Because he thinks we can drink oil in 30 years when all our water is poisoned.' In the event, most Democrats didn't bite. All 53 Republicans in the Senate voted against the plan, but they were joined by just three Democrats and independent Sen. Angus King of Maine (who caucuses with Democrats). The remaining 43 Democratic senators all declined to commit and merely voted 'present' in protest of the GOP's action. The procedural motion was thus voted down by a 57-0 margin. A meme circulated online afterwards offensively portrayed Rep. Ocasio-Cortez as a '100% retard' for failing to 'even vote for [her] own bill': The implications of that meme were wrong on two counts: 1) The Senate was not voting on whether to accept or reject Ocasio-Cortez's 'Green New Deal' resolution. What the Senate voted on was a different form of the resolution, and what they voted against was not the resolution itself but a motion for cloture, the step of agreeing to end debate on a bill so that Senate consideration of it can move forward: This was not the non-binding Green New Deal resolution introduced by Sen. Edward Markey and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Feb. 7. Instead, this was a version that McConnell himself introduced, and it was a binding resolution. Instead of voting on whether 'it is the sense of the Senate' that the government has a duty to create a Green New Deal, senators would have been skipping ahead to vote on whether the Green New Deal should become 'the policy of the United States,' without so much as a hearing. Under Senate rules, making it binding was the only way McConnell could hold a show vote without the usual process of assigning the legislation to the appropriate committees for discussion and debate. That would put a public spotlight on experts testifying and debate over climate solutions, something McConnell is seeking to avoid. Technically, the Senate voted on whether to end debate on McConnell's motion to proceed to consideration of his version of a Green New Deal resolution. This 'cloture' vote wasn't on the substance of the Green New Deal. McConnell's aim was not to actually consider the Green New Deal, which he describes as a 'socialist' plan that would 'uproot life as we know it.' He was hoping the vote would kill talk of a Green New Deal in its infancy, while putting Democrats on the spot. 2) Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, not a member of the U.S. Senate, and thus she had no opportunity to vote on the cloture motion at all. In short, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez didn't 'neglect' or 'forget' to participate in the referenced Green New Deal vote: she wasn't eligible to take part in it because she isn't a member of the Senate. Nor was the vote that took place in the Senate one that directly addressed the merits or deficiencies of her Green New Deal resolution.

In short, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez didn't 'neglect' or 'forget' to participate in the referenced Green New Deal vote: she wasn't eligible to take part in it because she isn't a member of the Senate. Nor was the vote that took place in the Senate one that directly addressed the merits or deficiencies of her Green New Deal resolution.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez neglected to vote for her own 'Green New Deal' resolution, which was defeated without receiving a single vote in favor.

Contradiction

On 7 February 2019, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Rep. Edward Markey of Massachusetts, both Democrats, introduced a five-page nonbinding resolution to the U.S. House of Representatives for federal government to recognize its duty to establish a 'Green New Deal.' The controversial proposal incorporated seven goals previously articulated by Ocasio-Cortez for the U.S. to realize within ten years: Dramatically expand existing renewable power sources and deploy new production capacity with the goal of meeting 100% of national power demand through renewable sources; building a national, energy-efficient, 'smart' grid; upgrading every residential and industrial building for state-of-the-art energy efficiency, comfort and safety; eliminating greenhouse gas emissions from the manufacturing, agricultural and other industries, including by investing in local-scale agriculture in communities across the country; eliminating greenhouse gas emissions from, repairing and improving transportation and other infrastructure, and upgrading water infrastructure to ensure universal access to clean water; funding massive investment in the drawdown of greenhouse gases; making 'green' technology, industry, expertise, products and services a major export of the United States, with the aim of becoming the undisputed international leader in helping other countries transition to completely greenhouse gas neutral economies and bringing about a global Green New Deal. The broader proposal also called for sweeping social measures such as 'a job guarantee program to assure a living wage job to every person who wants one,' 'basic income programs' and 'universal health care programs.' On 26 March 2019, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell forced a preemptive vote in the U.S. Senate on a procedural motion to take up a binding form of the resolution, deriding the Green New Deal as a plan for 'basically outlawing the only sources of energy that working-class and middle-class families can actually afford' that would 'kill off entire domestic industries' and eliminate millions of jobs. Democrats criticized McConnell's move as a 'sham' intended to 'quash debate by blocking public hearings and expert testimony about the consequences of inaction on climate change' and to hasten a vote in order to force Senate Democrats to commit to either supporting or rejecting the proposal at a very early stage: Republicans ... set up this vote to highlight potential splits in the Democratic caucus and force lawmakers to splinter from a high-profile, progressive idea. As the thinking goes, if only part of the Democratic caucus wound up backing the idea, Republicans could argue that it didn't actually have enough support from the party ... Additionally, the move was aimed at putting Democrats from more moderate states in a tough position, forcing them to choose between backing a popular liberal idea and potentially turning off some of their constituents. 'The Senate vote is a perfect example of that kind of superficial approach to government,' Ocasio-Cortez said. 'What McConnell's doing is that he's trying to rush this bill to the floor without a hearing, without any markups, without working through committee - because he doesn't want to save our planet. Because he thinks we can drink oil in 30 years when all our water is poisoned.' In the event, most Democrats didn't bite. All 53 Republicans in the Senate voted against the plan, but they were joined by just three Democrats and independent Sen. Angus King of Maine (who caucuses with Democrats). The remaining 43 Democratic senators all declined to commit and merely voted 'present' in protest of the GOP's action. The procedural motion was thus voted down by a 57-0 margin. A meme circulated online afterwards offensively portrayed Rep. Ocasio-Cortez as a '100% retard' for failing to 'even vote for [her] own bill': The implications of that meme were wrong on two counts: 1) The Senate was not voting on whether to accept or reject Ocasio-Cortez's 'Green New Deal' resolution. What the Senate voted on was a different form of the resolution, and what they voted against was not the resolution itself but a motion for cloture, the step of agreeing to end debate on a bill so that Senate consideration of it can move forward: This was not the non-binding Green New Deal resolution introduced by Sen. Edward Markey and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Feb. 7. Instead, this was a version that McConnell himself introduced, and it was a binding resolution. Instead of voting on whether 'it is the sense of the Senate' that the government has a duty to create a Green New Deal, senators would have been skipping ahead to vote on whether the Green New Deal should become 'the policy of the United States,' without so much as a hearing. Under Senate rules, making it binding was the only way McConnell could hold a show vote without the usual process of assigning the legislation to the appropriate committees for discussion and debate. That would put a public spotlight on experts testifying and debate over climate solutions, something McConnell is seeking to avoid. Technically, the Senate voted on whether to end debate on McConnell's motion to proceed to consideration of his version of a Green New Deal resolution. This 'cloture' vote wasn't on the substance of the Green New Deal. McConnell's aim was not to actually consider the Green New Deal, which he describes as a 'socialist' plan that would 'uproot life as we know it.' He was hoping the vote would kill talk of a Green New Deal in its infancy, while putting Democrats on the spot. 2) Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, not a member of the U.S. Senate, and thus she had no opportunity to vote on the cloture motion at all. In short, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez didn't 'neglect' or 'forget' to participate in the referenced Green New Deal vote: she wasn't eligible to take part in it because she isn't a member of the Senate. Nor was the vote that took place in the Senate one that directly addressed the merits or deficiencies of her Green New Deal resolution.

In short, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez didn't 'neglect' or 'forget' to participate in the referenced Green New Deal vote: she wasn't eligible to take part in it because she isn't a member of the Senate. Nor was the vote that took place in the Senate one that directly addressed the merits or deficiencies of her Green New Deal resolution.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez neglected to vote for her own 'Green New Deal' resolution, which was defeated without receiving a single vote in favor.

Contradiction

On 7 February 2019, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Rep. Edward Markey of Massachusetts, both Democrats, introduced a five-page nonbinding resolution to the U.S. House of Representatives for federal government to recognize its duty to establish a 'Green New Deal.' The controversial proposal incorporated seven goals previously articulated by Ocasio-Cortez for the U.S. to realize within ten years: Dramatically expand existing renewable power sources and deploy new production capacity with the goal of meeting 100% of national power demand through renewable sources; building a national, energy-efficient, 'smart' grid; upgrading every residential and industrial building for state-of-the-art energy efficiency, comfort and safety; eliminating greenhouse gas emissions from the manufacturing, agricultural and other industries, including by investing in local-scale agriculture in communities across the country; eliminating greenhouse gas emissions from, repairing and improving transportation and other infrastructure, and upgrading water infrastructure to ensure universal access to clean water; funding massive investment in the drawdown of greenhouse gases; making 'green' technology, industry, expertise, products and services a major export of the United States, with the aim of becoming the undisputed international leader in helping other countries transition to completely greenhouse gas neutral economies and bringing about a global Green New Deal. The broader proposal also called for sweeping social measures such as 'a job guarantee program to assure a living wage job to every person who wants one,' 'basic income programs' and 'universal health care programs.' On 26 March 2019, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell forced a preemptive vote in the U.S. Senate on a procedural motion to take up a binding form of the resolution, deriding the Green New Deal as a plan for 'basically outlawing the only sources of energy that working-class and middle-class families can actually afford' that would 'kill off entire domestic industries' and eliminate millions of jobs. Democrats criticized McConnell's move as a 'sham' intended to 'quash debate by blocking public hearings and expert testimony about the consequences of inaction on climate change' and to hasten a vote in order to force Senate Democrats to commit to either supporting or rejecting the proposal at a very early stage: Republicans ... set up this vote to highlight potential splits in the Democratic caucus and force lawmakers to splinter from a high-profile, progressive idea. As the thinking goes, if only part of the Democratic caucus wound up backing the idea, Republicans could argue that it didn't actually have enough support from the party ... Additionally, the move was aimed at putting Democrats from more moderate states in a tough position, forcing them to choose between backing a popular liberal idea and potentially turning off some of their constituents. 'The Senate vote is a perfect example of that kind of superficial approach to government,' Ocasio-Cortez said. 'What McConnell's doing is that he's trying to rush this bill to the floor without a hearing, without any markups, without working through committee - because he doesn't want to save our planet. Because he thinks we can drink oil in 30 years when all our water is poisoned.' In the event, most Democrats didn't bite. All 53 Republicans in the Senate voted against the plan, but they were joined by just three Democrats and independent Sen. Angus King of Maine (who caucuses with Democrats). The remaining 43 Democratic senators all declined to commit and merely voted 'present' in protest of the GOP's action. The procedural motion was thus voted down by a 57-0 margin. A meme circulated online afterwards offensively portrayed Rep. Ocasio-Cortez as a '100% retard' for failing to 'even vote for [her] own bill': The implications of that meme were wrong on two counts: 1) The Senate was not voting on whether to accept or reject Ocasio-Cortez's 'Green New Deal' resolution. What the Senate voted on was a different form of the resolution, and what they voted against was not the resolution itself but a motion for cloture, the step of agreeing to end debate on a bill so that Senate consideration of it can move forward: This was not the non-binding Green New Deal resolution introduced by Sen. Edward Markey and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Feb. 7. Instead, this was a version that McConnell himself introduced, and it was a binding resolution. Instead of voting on whether 'it is the sense of the Senate' that the government has a duty to create a Green New Deal, senators would have been skipping ahead to vote on whether the Green New Deal should become 'the policy of the United States,' without so much as a hearing. Under Senate rules, making it binding was the only way McConnell could hold a show vote without the usual process of assigning the legislation to the appropriate committees for discussion and debate. That would put a public spotlight on experts testifying and debate over climate solutions, something McConnell is seeking to avoid. Technically, the Senate voted on whether to end debate on McConnell's motion to proceed to consideration of his version of a Green New Deal resolution. This 'cloture' vote wasn't on the substance of the Green New Deal. McConnell's aim was not to actually consider the Green New Deal, which he describes as a 'socialist' plan that would 'uproot life as we know it.' He was hoping the vote would kill talk of a Green New Deal in its infancy, while putting Democrats on the spot. 2) Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, not a member of the U.S. Senate, and thus she had no opportunity to vote on the cloture motion at all. In short, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez didn't 'neglect' or 'forget' to participate in the referenced Green New Deal vote: she wasn't eligible to take part in it because she isn't a member of the Senate. Nor was the vote that took place in the Senate one that directly addressed the merits or deficiencies of her Green New Deal resolution.

In short, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez didn't 'neglect' or 'forget' to participate in the referenced Green New Deal vote: she wasn't eligible to take part in it because she isn't a member of the Senate. Nor was the vote that took place in the Senate one that directly addressed the merits or deficiencies of her Green New Deal resolution.

Democrats are trying to change Mother's Day to Birthing People's Day.

Contradiction

Mother's Day could cease to exist, if conservatives are to be believed. On May 6, 2021, Democratic U.S. Rep. Cori Bush tweeted using the term 'birthing people' instead of 'mothers,' resulting in a flurry of criticism and mockery from conservatives, including Fox News and Newsmax anchors. Laura Ingraham's Fox News show, 'The Ingraham Angle,' tweeted: 'Democrats replace 'women' with 'birthing people.'' Democrats replace 'women' with 'birthing people.' pic.twitter.com/i39uFLKvtp - Laura Ingraham (@IngrahamAngle) May 7, 2021 Newsmax TV host Steve Cortes tweeted: 'This upcoming Sunday is no longer Mothers Day, it's Birthing Peoples' Day.' 'Birthing people.' This upcoming Sunday is no longer Mothers Day, it's Birthing Peoples' Day. https://t.co/Wkr2P7wUk6 - Steve Cortes (@CortesSteve) May 6, 2021 Republican Sen. Ted Cruz also tweeted a picture in which 'Mother's' was erased and replaced by 'Birthing People's': Happy Birthing People's Day! pic.twitter.com/2GbFenjmGr - Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) May 9, 2021 As a result of the criticism, Snopes readers asked us if this means that Democrats really are attempting to replace 'Mother's Day' with the term 'Birthing People's Day.' We learned that these claims are false. The Democratic Party has not announced, revealed, or demonstrated any plans to replace the term 'Mother's Day' with any other phrase. On May 9, 2021, Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi released a statement using only the term 'Mother's Day.' When Bush tweeted using the term 'birthing people,' it was in order to be more inclusive of transgender people, including transgender men and gender-nonconforming people who also give birth, she later explained. The controversy began with a tweet in which Bush referred to the medical challenges faced by 'Black birthing people.' Every day, Black birthing people and our babies die because our doctors don't believe our pain. My children almost became a statistic. I almost became a statistic. I testified about my experience @OversightDems today. Hear us. Believe us. Because for so long, nobody has. pic.twitter.com/rExrMXzsSQ - Congresswoman Cori Bush (@RepCori) May 6, 2021 She defended her use of the term in another series of tweets. Bush referred to Black birthing people, Black women, Black mothers, Black trans people: The work we do in Congress is about saving lives. Health justice is about being inclusive, and it can be the difference between life and death for people. - Congresswoman Cori Bush (@RepCori) May 6, 2021 Trans people give birth. Gender non-conforming people give birth. I identify as a mother, but not every person who gives birth identifies as one. Everything I do is rooted in love, a love that means that everyone's identity is respected, welcomed, and celebrated. - Congresswoman Cori Bush (@RepCori) May 6, 2021 Black birthing people matter. Black women matter. Black trans people matter. Black mothers matter. It's past time for Congress to legislate like they do. - Congresswoman Cori Bush (@RepCori) May 6, 2021 In response to her tweets, the pro-choice, pro-abortion rights advocacy group NARAL explained that the term 'birthing people' was meant to be inclusive: When we talk about birthing people, we're being inclusive. It's that simple. We use gender neutral language when talking about pregnancy, because it's not just cis-gender women that can get pregnant and give birth. Reproductive freedom is for *every* body. https://t.co/9E9qKRMJTu - NARAL (@NARAL) May 6, 2021 Bush was not the only Democrat who used this language. On May 6, Rep. Ayanna Pressley used the term 'birthing people' in her reintroduction of the Maximizing Outcomes for Moms through Medicaid Improvement and Enhancement of Service Act (MOMMIES), which seeks to expand Medicaid coverage for pregnant people: The bill extends coverage for birthing people from two months to a full year after childbirth, increasing access to primary care and reproductive health providers and ensuring that all pregnant and postpartum people have full Medicaid coverage, rather than coverage that can be limited to arbitrarily picked pregnancy-related services. The Democrat-headed Committee on Oversight and Reforms has also used the term: 📢 Chair @RepMaloney was clear: Health equity for Black birthing people is attainable. WATCH as she opens @OversightDems' landmark hearing on the #BlackMaternalHealth crisis to address the racial disparities that hold Black birthing people from the health equity they deserve. pic.twitter.com/nwg5kkmkZP - Oversight Committee (@OversightDems) May 6, 2021 Referring to pregnant people in this way is becoming more common as a sign of inclusivity. A panel run by the Harvard Medical School's postgraduate program used the term 'pregnant and birthing people': Globally, ethnic minority pregnant and birthing people suffer worse outcomes and experiences during and after pregnancy and childbirth. These inequities have been further highlighted by #COVID19. Watch this panel discussion on #MaternalJustice. https://t.co/RcflQQapQo pic.twitter.com/N5m2s2SRdi - Harvard Med Postgraduate and Continuing Education (@HMSPostgradCE) November 8, 2020 The webinar panelists used the term 'birthing person' to include those who identify as non-binary or transgender because not all who give birth identify as 'women' or 'girls.' We understand the reactions to this terminology and in no way meant for it to erase or dehumanize women. - Harvard Med Postgraduate and Continuing Education (@HMSPostgradCE) November 9, 2020 In sum, Democrats as a party are not seeking to rename 'Mother's Day,' nor are they seeking to replace the word 'mother' with 'birthing people.' Many Democrats are, however, pushing for language that is inclusive of transgender and gender-nonconforming people who also give birth. While many critics claimed that this language excludes pregnant women, Bush has referred to women, mothers, and birthing people in her tweets explaining the use of inclusive terminology. Furthermore, Bush has never advocated for changing the title of 'Mother's Day,' only called for language that includes more people. We thus rate this claim as 'False.' The Trans Journalists Association has a style guide on how to write about transgender issues in the media.

In sum, Democrats as a party are not seeking to rename 'Mother's Day,' nor are they seeking to replace the word 'mother' with 'birthing people.' Many Democrats are, however, pushing for language that is inclusive of transgender and gender-nonconforming people who also give birth. While many critics claimed that this language excludes pregnant women, Bush has referred to women, mothers, and birthing people in her tweets explaining the use of inclusive terminology. Furthermore, Bush has never advocated for changing the title of 'Mother's Day,' only called for language that includes more people. We thus rate this claim as 'False.' The Trans Journalists Association has a style guide on how to write about transgender issues in the media.

Democrats are trying to change Mother's Day to Birthing People's Day.

Contradiction

Mother's Day could cease to exist, if conservatives are to be believed. On May 6, 2021, Democratic U.S. Rep. Cori Bush tweeted using the term 'birthing people' instead of 'mothers,' resulting in a flurry of criticism and mockery from conservatives, including Fox News and Newsmax anchors. Laura Ingraham's Fox News show, 'The Ingraham Angle,' tweeted: 'Democrats replace 'women' with 'birthing people.'' Democrats replace 'women' with 'birthing people.' pic.twitter.com/i39uFLKvtp - Laura Ingraham (@IngrahamAngle) May 7, 2021 Newsmax TV host Steve Cortes tweeted: 'This upcoming Sunday is no longer Mothers Day, it's Birthing Peoples' Day.' 'Birthing people.' This upcoming Sunday is no longer Mothers Day, it's Birthing Peoples' Day. https://t.co/Wkr2P7wUk6 - Steve Cortes (@CortesSteve) May 6, 2021 Republican Sen. Ted Cruz also tweeted a picture in which 'Mother's' was erased and replaced by 'Birthing People's': Happy Birthing People's Day! pic.twitter.com/2GbFenjmGr - Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) May 9, 2021 As a result of the criticism, Snopes readers asked us if this means that Democrats really are attempting to replace 'Mother's Day' with the term 'Birthing People's Day.' We learned that these claims are false. The Democratic Party has not announced, revealed, or demonstrated any plans to replace the term 'Mother's Day' with any other phrase. On May 9, 2021, Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi released a statement using only the term 'Mother's Day.' When Bush tweeted using the term 'birthing people,' it was in order to be more inclusive of transgender people, including transgender men and gender-nonconforming people who also give birth, she later explained. The controversy began with a tweet in which Bush referred to the medical challenges faced by 'Black birthing people.' Every day, Black birthing people and our babies die because our doctors don't believe our pain. My children almost became a statistic. I almost became a statistic. I testified about my experience @OversightDems today. Hear us. Believe us. Because for so long, nobody has. pic.twitter.com/rExrMXzsSQ - Congresswoman Cori Bush (@RepCori) May 6, 2021 She defended her use of the term in another series of tweets. Bush referred to Black birthing people, Black women, Black mothers, Black trans people: The work we do in Congress is about saving lives. Health justice is about being inclusive, and it can be the difference between life and death for people. - Congresswoman Cori Bush (@RepCori) May 6, 2021 Trans people give birth. Gender non-conforming people give birth. I identify as a mother, but not every person who gives birth identifies as one. Everything I do is rooted in love, a love that means that everyone's identity is respected, welcomed, and celebrated. - Congresswoman Cori Bush (@RepCori) May 6, 2021 Black birthing people matter. Black women matter. Black trans people matter. Black mothers matter. It's past time for Congress to legislate like they do. - Congresswoman Cori Bush (@RepCori) May 6, 2021 In response to her tweets, the pro-choice, pro-abortion rights advocacy group NARAL explained that the term 'birthing people' was meant to be inclusive: When we talk about birthing people, we're being inclusive. It's that simple. We use gender neutral language when talking about pregnancy, because it's not just cis-gender women that can get pregnant and give birth. Reproductive freedom is for *every* body. https://t.co/9E9qKRMJTu - NARAL (@NARAL) May 6, 2021 Bush was not the only Democrat who used this language. On May 6, Rep. Ayanna Pressley used the term 'birthing people' in her reintroduction of the Maximizing Outcomes for Moms through Medicaid Improvement and Enhancement of Service Act (MOMMIES), which seeks to expand Medicaid coverage for pregnant people: The bill extends coverage for birthing people from two months to a full year after childbirth, increasing access to primary care and reproductive health providers and ensuring that all pregnant and postpartum people have full Medicaid coverage, rather than coverage that can be limited to arbitrarily picked pregnancy-related services. The Democrat-headed Committee on Oversight and Reforms has also used the term: 📢 Chair @RepMaloney was clear: Health equity for Black birthing people is attainable. WATCH as she opens @OversightDems' landmark hearing on the #BlackMaternalHealth crisis to address the racial disparities that hold Black birthing people from the health equity they deserve. pic.twitter.com/nwg5kkmkZP - Oversight Committee (@OversightDems) May 6, 2021 Referring to pregnant people in this way is becoming more common as a sign of inclusivity. A panel run by the Harvard Medical School's postgraduate program used the term 'pregnant and birthing people': Globally, ethnic minority pregnant and birthing people suffer worse outcomes and experiences during and after pregnancy and childbirth. These inequities have been further highlighted by #COVID19. Watch this panel discussion on #MaternalJustice. https://t.co/RcflQQapQo pic.twitter.com/N5m2s2SRdi - Harvard Med Postgraduate and Continuing Education (@HMSPostgradCE) November 8, 2020 The webinar panelists used the term 'birthing person' to include those who identify as non-binary or transgender because not all who give birth identify as 'women' or 'girls.' We understand the reactions to this terminology and in no way meant for it to erase or dehumanize women. - Harvard Med Postgraduate and Continuing Education (@HMSPostgradCE) November 9, 2020 In sum, Democrats as a party are not seeking to rename 'Mother's Day,' nor are they seeking to replace the word 'mother' with 'birthing people.' Many Democrats are, however, pushing for language that is inclusive of transgender and gender-nonconforming people who also give birth. While many critics claimed that this language excludes pregnant women, Bush has referred to women, mothers, and birthing people in her tweets explaining the use of inclusive terminology. Furthermore, Bush has never advocated for changing the title of 'Mother's Day,' only called for language that includes more people. We thus rate this claim as 'False.' The Trans Journalists Association has a style guide on how to write about transgender issues in the media.

In sum, Democrats as a party are not seeking to rename 'Mother's Day,' nor are they seeking to replace the word 'mother' with 'birthing people.' Many Democrats are, however, pushing for language that is inclusive of transgender and gender-nonconforming people who also give birth. While many critics claimed that this language excludes pregnant women, Bush has referred to women, mothers, and birthing people in her tweets explaining the use of inclusive terminology. Furthermore, Bush has never advocated for changing the title of 'Mother's Day,' only called for language that includes more people. We thus rate this claim as 'False.' The Trans Journalists Association has a style guide on how to write about transgender issues in the media.

Democrats are trying to change Mother's Day to Birthing People's Day.

Contradiction

Mother's Day could cease to exist, if conservatives are to be believed. On May 6, 2021, Democratic U.S. Rep. Cori Bush tweeted using the term 'birthing people' instead of 'mothers,' resulting in a flurry of criticism and mockery from conservatives, including Fox News and Newsmax anchors. Laura Ingraham's Fox News show, 'The Ingraham Angle,' tweeted: 'Democrats replace 'women' with 'birthing people.'' Democrats replace 'women' with 'birthing people.' pic.twitter.com/i39uFLKvtp - Laura Ingraham (@IngrahamAngle) May 7, 2021 Newsmax TV host Steve Cortes tweeted: 'This upcoming Sunday is no longer Mothers Day, it's Birthing Peoples' Day.' 'Birthing people.' This upcoming Sunday is no longer Mothers Day, it's Birthing Peoples' Day. https://t.co/Wkr2P7wUk6 - Steve Cortes (@CortesSteve) May 6, 2021 Republican Sen. Ted Cruz also tweeted a picture in which 'Mother's' was erased and replaced by 'Birthing People's': Happy Birthing People's Day! pic.twitter.com/2GbFenjmGr - Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) May 9, 2021 As a result of the criticism, Snopes readers asked us if this means that Democrats really are attempting to replace 'Mother's Day' with the term 'Birthing People's Day.' We learned that these claims are false. The Democratic Party has not announced, revealed, or demonstrated any plans to replace the term 'Mother's Day' with any other phrase. On May 9, 2021, Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi released a statement using only the term 'Mother's Day.' When Bush tweeted using the term 'birthing people,' it was in order to be more inclusive of transgender people, including transgender men and gender-nonconforming people who also give birth, she later explained. The controversy began with a tweet in which Bush referred to the medical challenges faced by 'Black birthing people.' Every day, Black birthing people and our babies die because our doctors don't believe our pain. My children almost became a statistic. I almost became a statistic. I testified about my experience @OversightDems today. Hear us. Believe us. Because for so long, nobody has. pic.twitter.com/rExrMXzsSQ - Congresswoman Cori Bush (@RepCori) May 6, 2021 She defended her use of the term in another series of tweets. Bush referred to Black birthing people, Black women, Black mothers, Black trans people: The work we do in Congress is about saving lives. Health justice is about being inclusive, and it can be the difference between life and death for people. - Congresswoman Cori Bush (@RepCori) May 6, 2021 Trans people give birth. Gender non-conforming people give birth. I identify as a mother, but not every person who gives birth identifies as one. Everything I do is rooted in love, a love that means that everyone's identity is respected, welcomed, and celebrated. - Congresswoman Cori Bush (@RepCori) May 6, 2021 Black birthing people matter. Black women matter. Black trans people matter. Black mothers matter. It's past time for Congress to legislate like they do. - Congresswoman Cori Bush (@RepCori) May 6, 2021 In response to her tweets, the pro-choice, pro-abortion rights advocacy group NARAL explained that the term 'birthing people' was meant to be inclusive: When we talk about birthing people, we're being inclusive. It's that simple. We use gender neutral language when talking about pregnancy, because it's not just cis-gender women that can get pregnant and give birth. Reproductive freedom is for *every* body. https://t.co/9E9qKRMJTu - NARAL (@NARAL) May 6, 2021 Bush was not the only Democrat who used this language. On May 6, Rep. Ayanna Pressley used the term 'birthing people' in her reintroduction of the Maximizing Outcomes for Moms through Medicaid Improvement and Enhancement of Service Act (MOMMIES), which seeks to expand Medicaid coverage for pregnant people: The bill extends coverage for birthing people from two months to a full year after childbirth, increasing access to primary care and reproductive health providers and ensuring that all pregnant and postpartum people have full Medicaid coverage, rather than coverage that can be limited to arbitrarily picked pregnancy-related services. The Democrat-headed Committee on Oversight and Reforms has also used the term: 📢 Chair @RepMaloney was clear: Health equity for Black birthing people is attainable. WATCH as she opens @OversightDems' landmark hearing on the #BlackMaternalHealth crisis to address the racial disparities that hold Black birthing people from the health equity they deserve. pic.twitter.com/nwg5kkmkZP - Oversight Committee (@OversightDems) May 6, 2021 Referring to pregnant people in this way is becoming more common as a sign of inclusivity. A panel run by the Harvard Medical School's postgraduate program used the term 'pregnant and birthing people': Globally, ethnic minority pregnant and birthing people suffer worse outcomes and experiences during and after pregnancy and childbirth. These inequities have been further highlighted by #COVID19. Watch this panel discussion on #MaternalJustice. https://t.co/RcflQQapQo pic.twitter.com/N5m2s2SRdi - Harvard Med Postgraduate and Continuing Education (@HMSPostgradCE) November 8, 2020 The webinar panelists used the term 'birthing person' to include those who identify as non-binary or transgender because not all who give birth identify as 'women' or 'girls.' We understand the reactions to this terminology and in no way meant for it to erase or dehumanize women. - Harvard Med Postgraduate and Continuing Education (@HMSPostgradCE) November 9, 2020 In sum, Democrats as a party are not seeking to rename 'Mother's Day,' nor are they seeking to replace the word 'mother' with 'birthing people.' Many Democrats are, however, pushing for language that is inclusive of transgender and gender-nonconforming people who also give birth. While many critics claimed that this language excludes pregnant women, Bush has referred to women, mothers, and birthing people in her tweets explaining the use of inclusive terminology. Furthermore, Bush has never advocated for changing the title of 'Mother's Day,' only called for language that includes more people. We thus rate this claim as 'False.' The Trans Journalists Association has a style guide on how to write about transgender issues in the media.

In sum, Democrats as a party are not seeking to rename 'Mother's Day,' nor are they seeking to replace the word 'mother' with 'birthing people.' Many Democrats are, however, pushing for language that is inclusive of transgender and gender-nonconforming people who also give birth. While many critics claimed that this language excludes pregnant women, Bush has referred to women, mothers, and birthing people in her tweets explaining the use of inclusive terminology. Furthermore, Bush has never advocated for changing the title of 'Mother's Day,' only called for language that includes more people. We thus rate this claim as 'False.' The Trans Journalists Association has a style guide on how to write about transgender issues in the media.

Democrats are trying to change Mother's Day to Birthing People's Day.

Contradiction

Mother's Day could cease to exist, if conservatives are to be believed. On May 6, 2021, Democratic U.S. Rep. Cori Bush tweeted using the term 'birthing people' instead of 'mothers,' resulting in a flurry of criticism and mockery from conservatives, including Fox News and Newsmax anchors. Laura Ingraham's Fox News show, 'The Ingraham Angle,' tweeted: 'Democrats replace 'women' with 'birthing people.'' Democrats replace 'women' with 'birthing people.' pic.twitter.com/i39uFLKvtp - Laura Ingraham (@IngrahamAngle) May 7, 2021 Newsmax TV host Steve Cortes tweeted: 'This upcoming Sunday is no longer Mothers Day, it's Birthing Peoples' Day.' 'Birthing people.' This upcoming Sunday is no longer Mothers Day, it's Birthing Peoples' Day. https://t.co/Wkr2P7wUk6 - Steve Cortes (@CortesSteve) May 6, 2021 Republican Sen. Ted Cruz also tweeted a picture in which 'Mother's' was erased and replaced by 'Birthing People's': Happy Birthing People's Day! pic.twitter.com/2GbFenjmGr - Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) May 9, 2021 As a result of the criticism, Snopes readers asked us if this means that Democrats really are attempting to replace 'Mother's Day' with the term 'Birthing People's Day.' We learned that these claims are false. The Democratic Party has not announced, revealed, or demonstrated any plans to replace the term 'Mother's Day' with any other phrase. On May 9, 2021, Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi released a statement using only the term 'Mother's Day.' When Bush tweeted using the term 'birthing people,' it was in order to be more inclusive of transgender people, including transgender men and gender-nonconforming people who also give birth, she later explained. The controversy began with a tweet in which Bush referred to the medical challenges faced by 'Black birthing people.' Every day, Black birthing people and our babies die because our doctors don't believe our pain. My children almost became a statistic. I almost became a statistic. I testified about my experience @OversightDems today. Hear us. Believe us. Because for so long, nobody has. pic.twitter.com/rExrMXzsSQ - Congresswoman Cori Bush (@RepCori) May 6, 2021 She defended her use of the term in another series of tweets. Bush referred to Black birthing people, Black women, Black mothers, Black trans people: The work we do in Congress is about saving lives. Health justice is about being inclusive, and it can be the difference between life and death for people. - Congresswoman Cori Bush (@RepCori) May 6, 2021 Trans people give birth. Gender non-conforming people give birth. I identify as a mother, but not every person who gives birth identifies as one. Everything I do is rooted in love, a love that means that everyone's identity is respected, welcomed, and celebrated. - Congresswoman Cori Bush (@RepCori) May 6, 2021 Black birthing people matter. Black women matter. Black trans people matter. Black mothers matter. It's past time for Congress to legislate like they do. - Congresswoman Cori Bush (@RepCori) May 6, 2021 In response to her tweets, the pro-choice, pro-abortion rights advocacy group NARAL explained that the term 'birthing people' was meant to be inclusive: When we talk about birthing people, we're being inclusive. It's that simple. We use gender neutral language when talking about pregnancy, because it's not just cis-gender women that can get pregnant and give birth. Reproductive freedom is for *every* body. https://t.co/9E9qKRMJTu - NARAL (@NARAL) May 6, 2021 Bush was not the only Democrat who used this language. On May 6, Rep. Ayanna Pressley used the term 'birthing people' in her reintroduction of the Maximizing Outcomes for Moms through Medicaid Improvement and Enhancement of Service Act (MOMMIES), which seeks to expand Medicaid coverage for pregnant people: The bill extends coverage for birthing people from two months to a full year after childbirth, increasing access to primary care and reproductive health providers and ensuring that all pregnant and postpartum people have full Medicaid coverage, rather than coverage that can be limited to arbitrarily picked pregnancy-related services. The Democrat-headed Committee on Oversight and Reforms has also used the term: 📢 Chair @RepMaloney was clear: Health equity for Black birthing people is attainable. WATCH as she opens @OversightDems' landmark hearing on the #BlackMaternalHealth crisis to address the racial disparities that hold Black birthing people from the health equity they deserve. pic.twitter.com/nwg5kkmkZP - Oversight Committee (@OversightDems) May 6, 2021 Referring to pregnant people in this way is becoming more common as a sign of inclusivity. A panel run by the Harvard Medical School's postgraduate program used the term 'pregnant and birthing people': Globally, ethnic minority pregnant and birthing people suffer worse outcomes and experiences during and after pregnancy and childbirth. These inequities have been further highlighted by #COVID19. Watch this panel discussion on #MaternalJustice. https://t.co/RcflQQapQo pic.twitter.com/N5m2s2SRdi - Harvard Med Postgraduate and Continuing Education (@HMSPostgradCE) November 8, 2020 The webinar panelists used the term 'birthing person' to include those who identify as non-binary or transgender because not all who give birth identify as 'women' or 'girls.' We understand the reactions to this terminology and in no way meant for it to erase or dehumanize women. - Harvard Med Postgraduate and Continuing Education (@HMSPostgradCE) November 9, 2020 In sum, Democrats as a party are not seeking to rename 'Mother's Day,' nor are they seeking to replace the word 'mother' with 'birthing people.' Many Democrats are, however, pushing for language that is inclusive of transgender and gender-nonconforming people who also give birth. While many critics claimed that this language excludes pregnant women, Bush has referred to women, mothers, and birthing people in her tweets explaining the use of inclusive terminology. Furthermore, Bush has never advocated for changing the title of 'Mother's Day,' only called for language that includes more people. We thus rate this claim as 'False.' The Trans Journalists Association has a style guide on how to write about transgender issues in the media.

In sum, Democrats as a party are not seeking to rename 'Mother's Day,' nor are they seeking to replace the word 'mother' with 'birthing people.' Many Democrats are, however, pushing for language that is inclusive of transgender and gender-nonconforming people who also give birth. While many critics claimed that this language excludes pregnant women, Bush has referred to women, mothers, and birthing people in her tweets explaining the use of inclusive terminology. Furthermore, Bush has never advocated for changing the title of 'Mother's Day,' only called for language that includes more people. We thus rate this claim as 'False.' The Trans Journalists Association has a style guide on how to write about transgender issues in the media.

Democrats are trying to change Mother's Day to Birthing People's Day.

Contradiction

Mother's Day could cease to exist, if conservatives are to be believed. On May 6, 2021, Democratic U.S. Rep. Cori Bush tweeted using the term 'birthing people' instead of 'mothers,' resulting in a flurry of criticism and mockery from conservatives, including Fox News and Newsmax anchors. Laura Ingraham's Fox News show, 'The Ingraham Angle,' tweeted: 'Democrats replace 'women' with 'birthing people.'' Democrats replace 'women' with 'birthing people.' pic.twitter.com/i39uFLKvtp - Laura Ingraham (@IngrahamAngle) May 7, 2021 Newsmax TV host Steve Cortes tweeted: 'This upcoming Sunday is no longer Mothers Day, it's Birthing Peoples' Day.' 'Birthing people.' This upcoming Sunday is no longer Mothers Day, it's Birthing Peoples' Day. https://t.co/Wkr2P7wUk6 - Steve Cortes (@CortesSteve) May 6, 2021 Republican Sen. Ted Cruz also tweeted a picture in which 'Mother's' was erased and replaced by 'Birthing People's': Happy Birthing People's Day! pic.twitter.com/2GbFenjmGr - Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) May 9, 2021 As a result of the criticism, Snopes readers asked us if this means that Democrats really are attempting to replace 'Mother's Day' with the term 'Birthing People's Day.' We learned that these claims are false. The Democratic Party has not announced, revealed, or demonstrated any plans to replace the term 'Mother's Day' with any other phrase. On May 9, 2021, Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi released a statement using only the term 'Mother's Day.' When Bush tweeted using the term 'birthing people,' it was in order to be more inclusive of transgender people, including transgender men and gender-nonconforming people who also give birth, she later explained. The controversy began with a tweet in which Bush referred to the medical challenges faced by 'Black birthing people.' Every day, Black birthing people and our babies die because our doctors don't believe our pain. My children almost became a statistic. I almost became a statistic. I testified about my experience @OversightDems today. Hear us. Believe us. Because for so long, nobody has. pic.twitter.com/rExrMXzsSQ - Congresswoman Cori Bush (@RepCori) May 6, 2021 She defended her use of the term in another series of tweets. Bush referred to Black birthing people, Black women, Black mothers, Black trans people: The work we do in Congress is about saving lives. Health justice is about being inclusive, and it can be the difference between life and death for people. - Congresswoman Cori Bush (@RepCori) May 6, 2021 Trans people give birth. Gender non-conforming people give birth. I identify as a mother, but not every person who gives birth identifies as one. Everything I do is rooted in love, a love that means that everyone's identity is respected, welcomed, and celebrated. - Congresswoman Cori Bush (@RepCori) May 6, 2021 Black birthing people matter. Black women matter. Black trans people matter. Black mothers matter. It's past time for Congress to legislate like they do. - Congresswoman Cori Bush (@RepCori) May 6, 2021 In response to her tweets, the pro-choice, pro-abortion rights advocacy group NARAL explained that the term 'birthing people' was meant to be inclusive: When we talk about birthing people, we're being inclusive. It's that simple. We use gender neutral language when talking about pregnancy, because it's not just cis-gender women that can get pregnant and give birth. Reproductive freedom is for *every* body. https://t.co/9E9qKRMJTu - NARAL (@NARAL) May 6, 2021 Bush was not the only Democrat who used this language. On May 6, Rep. Ayanna Pressley used the term 'birthing people' in her reintroduction of the Maximizing Outcomes for Moms through Medicaid Improvement and Enhancement of Service Act (MOMMIES), which seeks to expand Medicaid coverage for pregnant people: The bill extends coverage for birthing people from two months to a full year after childbirth, increasing access to primary care and reproductive health providers and ensuring that all pregnant and postpartum people have full Medicaid coverage, rather than coverage that can be limited to arbitrarily picked pregnancy-related services. The Democrat-headed Committee on Oversight and Reforms has also used the term: 📢 Chair @RepMaloney was clear: Health equity for Black birthing people is attainable. WATCH as she opens @OversightDems' landmark hearing on the #BlackMaternalHealth crisis to address the racial disparities that hold Black birthing people from the health equity they deserve. pic.twitter.com/nwg5kkmkZP - Oversight Committee (@OversightDems) May 6, 2021 Referring to pregnant people in this way is becoming more common as a sign of inclusivity. A panel run by the Harvard Medical School's postgraduate program used the term 'pregnant and birthing people': Globally, ethnic minority pregnant and birthing people suffer worse outcomes and experiences during and after pregnancy and childbirth. These inequities have been further highlighted by #COVID19. Watch this panel discussion on #MaternalJustice. https://t.co/RcflQQapQo pic.twitter.com/N5m2s2SRdi - Harvard Med Postgraduate and Continuing Education (@HMSPostgradCE) November 8, 2020 The webinar panelists used the term 'birthing person' to include those who identify as non-binary or transgender because not all who give birth identify as 'women' or 'girls.' We understand the reactions to this terminology and in no way meant for it to erase or dehumanize women. - Harvard Med Postgraduate and Continuing Education (@HMSPostgradCE) November 9, 2020 In sum, Democrats as a party are not seeking to rename 'Mother's Day,' nor are they seeking to replace the word 'mother' with 'birthing people.' Many Democrats are, however, pushing for language that is inclusive of transgender and gender-nonconforming people who also give birth. While many critics claimed that this language excludes pregnant women, Bush has referred to women, mothers, and birthing people in her tweets explaining the use of inclusive terminology. Furthermore, Bush has never advocated for changing the title of 'Mother's Day,' only called for language that includes more people. We thus rate this claim as 'False.' The Trans Journalists Association has a style guide on how to write about transgender issues in the media.

In sum, Democrats as a party are not seeking to rename 'Mother's Day,' nor are they seeking to replace the word 'mother' with 'birthing people.' Many Democrats are, however, pushing for language that is inclusive of transgender and gender-nonconforming people who also give birth. While many critics claimed that this language excludes pregnant women, Bush has referred to women, mothers, and birthing people in her tweets explaining the use of inclusive terminology. Furthermore, Bush has never advocated for changing the title of 'Mother's Day,' only called for language that includes more people. We thus rate this claim as 'False.' The Trans Journalists Association has a style guide on how to write about transgender issues in the media.

Democrats are trying to change Mother's Day to Birthing People's Day.

Contradiction

Mother's Day could cease to exist, if conservatives are to be believed. On May 6, 2021, Democratic U.S. Rep. Cori Bush tweeted using the term 'birthing people' instead of 'mothers,' resulting in a flurry of criticism and mockery from conservatives, including Fox News and Newsmax anchors. Laura Ingraham's Fox News show, 'The Ingraham Angle,' tweeted: 'Democrats replace 'women' with 'birthing people.'' Democrats replace 'women' with 'birthing people.' pic.twitter.com/i39uFLKvtp - Laura Ingraham (@IngrahamAngle) May 7, 2021 Newsmax TV host Steve Cortes tweeted: 'This upcoming Sunday is no longer Mothers Day, it's Birthing Peoples' Day.' 'Birthing people.' This upcoming Sunday is no longer Mothers Day, it's Birthing Peoples' Day. https://t.co/Wkr2P7wUk6 - Steve Cortes (@CortesSteve) May 6, 2021 Republican Sen. Ted Cruz also tweeted a picture in which 'Mother's' was erased and replaced by 'Birthing People's': Happy Birthing People's Day! pic.twitter.com/2GbFenjmGr - Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) May 9, 2021 As a result of the criticism, Snopes readers asked us if this means that Democrats really are attempting to replace 'Mother's Day' with the term 'Birthing People's Day.' We learned that these claims are false. The Democratic Party has not announced, revealed, or demonstrated any plans to replace the term 'Mother's Day' with any other phrase. On May 9, 2021, Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi released a statement using only the term 'Mother's Day.' When Bush tweeted using the term 'birthing people,' it was in order to be more inclusive of transgender people, including transgender men and gender-nonconforming people who also give birth, she later explained. The controversy began with a tweet in which Bush referred to the medical challenges faced by 'Black birthing people.' Every day, Black birthing people and our babies die because our doctors don't believe our pain. My children almost became a statistic. I almost became a statistic. I testified about my experience @OversightDems today. Hear us. Believe us. Because for so long, nobody has. pic.twitter.com/rExrMXzsSQ - Congresswoman Cori Bush (@RepCori) May 6, 2021 She defended her use of the term in another series of tweets. Bush referred to Black birthing people, Black women, Black mothers, Black trans people: The work we do in Congress is about saving lives. Health justice is about being inclusive, and it can be the difference between life and death for people. - Congresswoman Cori Bush (@RepCori) May 6, 2021 Trans people give birth. Gender non-conforming people give birth. I identify as a mother, but not every person who gives birth identifies as one. Everything I do is rooted in love, a love that means that everyone's identity is respected, welcomed, and celebrated. - Congresswoman Cori Bush (@RepCori) May 6, 2021 Black birthing people matter. Black women matter. Black trans people matter. Black mothers matter. It's past time for Congress to legislate like they do. - Congresswoman Cori Bush (@RepCori) May 6, 2021 In response to her tweets, the pro-choice, pro-abortion rights advocacy group NARAL explained that the term 'birthing people' was meant to be inclusive: When we talk about birthing people, we're being inclusive. It's that simple. We use gender neutral language when talking about pregnancy, because it's not just cis-gender women that can get pregnant and give birth. Reproductive freedom is for *every* body. https://t.co/9E9qKRMJTu - NARAL (@NARAL) May 6, 2021 Bush was not the only Democrat who used this language. On May 6, Rep. Ayanna Pressley used the term 'birthing people' in her reintroduction of the Maximizing Outcomes for Moms through Medicaid Improvement and Enhancement of Service Act (MOMMIES), which seeks to expand Medicaid coverage for pregnant people: The bill extends coverage for birthing people from two months to a full year after childbirth, increasing access to primary care and reproductive health providers and ensuring that all pregnant and postpartum people have full Medicaid coverage, rather than coverage that can be limited to arbitrarily picked pregnancy-related services. The Democrat-headed Committee on Oversight and Reforms has also used the term: 📢 Chair @RepMaloney was clear: Health equity for Black birthing people is attainable. WATCH as she opens @OversightDems' landmark hearing on the #BlackMaternalHealth crisis to address the racial disparities that hold Black birthing people from the health equity they deserve. pic.twitter.com/nwg5kkmkZP - Oversight Committee (@OversightDems) May 6, 2021 Referring to pregnant people in this way is becoming more common as a sign of inclusivity. A panel run by the Harvard Medical School's postgraduate program used the term 'pregnant and birthing people': Globally, ethnic minority pregnant and birthing people suffer worse outcomes and experiences during and after pregnancy and childbirth. These inequities have been further highlighted by #COVID19. Watch this panel discussion on #MaternalJustice. https://t.co/RcflQQapQo pic.twitter.com/N5m2s2SRdi - Harvard Med Postgraduate and Continuing Education (@HMSPostgradCE) November 8, 2020 The webinar panelists used the term 'birthing person' to include those who identify as non-binary or transgender because not all who give birth identify as 'women' or 'girls.' We understand the reactions to this terminology and in no way meant for it to erase or dehumanize women. - Harvard Med Postgraduate and Continuing Education (@HMSPostgradCE) November 9, 2020 In sum, Democrats as a party are not seeking to rename 'Mother's Day,' nor are they seeking to replace the word 'mother' with 'birthing people.' Many Democrats are, however, pushing for language that is inclusive of transgender and gender-nonconforming people who also give birth. While many critics claimed that this language excludes pregnant women, Bush has referred to women, mothers, and birthing people in her tweets explaining the use of inclusive terminology. Furthermore, Bush has never advocated for changing the title of 'Mother's Day,' only called for language that includes more people. We thus rate this claim as 'False.' The Trans Journalists Association has a style guide on how to write about transgender issues in the media.

In sum, Democrats as a party are not seeking to rename 'Mother's Day,' nor are they seeking to replace the word 'mother' with 'birthing people.' Many Democrats are, however, pushing for language that is inclusive of transgender and gender-nonconforming people who also give birth. While many critics claimed that this language excludes pregnant women, Bush has referred to women, mothers, and birthing people in her tweets explaining the use of inclusive terminology. Furthermore, Bush has never advocated for changing the title of 'Mother's Day,' only called for language that includes more people. We thus rate this claim as 'False.' The Trans Journalists Association has a style guide on how to write about transgender issues in the media.

Democrats are trying to change Mother's Day to Birthing People's Day.

Contradiction

Mother's Day could cease to exist, if conservatives are to be believed. On May 6, 2021, Democratic U.S. Rep. Cori Bush tweeted using the term 'birthing people' instead of 'mothers,' resulting in a flurry of criticism and mockery from conservatives, including Fox News and Newsmax anchors. Laura Ingraham's Fox News show, 'The Ingraham Angle,' tweeted: 'Democrats replace 'women' with 'birthing people.'' Democrats replace 'women' with 'birthing people.' pic.twitter.com/i39uFLKvtp - Laura Ingraham (@IngrahamAngle) May 7, 2021 Newsmax TV host Steve Cortes tweeted: 'This upcoming Sunday is no longer Mothers Day, it's Birthing Peoples' Day.' 'Birthing people.' This upcoming Sunday is no longer Mothers Day, it's Birthing Peoples' Day. https://t.co/Wkr2P7wUk6 - Steve Cortes (@CortesSteve) May 6, 2021 Republican Sen. Ted Cruz also tweeted a picture in which 'Mother's' was erased and replaced by 'Birthing People's': Happy Birthing People's Day! pic.twitter.com/2GbFenjmGr - Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) May 9, 2021 As a result of the criticism, Snopes readers asked us if this means that Democrats really are attempting to replace 'Mother's Day' with the term 'Birthing People's Day.' We learned that these claims are false. The Democratic Party has not announced, revealed, or demonstrated any plans to replace the term 'Mother's Day' with any other phrase. On May 9, 2021, Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi released a statement using only the term 'Mother's Day.' When Bush tweeted using the term 'birthing people,' it was in order to be more inclusive of transgender people, including transgender men and gender-nonconforming people who also give birth, she later explained. The controversy began with a tweet in which Bush referred to the medical challenges faced by 'Black birthing people.' Every day, Black birthing people and our babies die because our doctors don't believe our pain. My children almost became a statistic. I almost became a statistic. I testified about my experience @OversightDems today. Hear us. Believe us. Because for so long, nobody has. pic.twitter.com/rExrMXzsSQ - Congresswoman Cori Bush (@RepCori) May 6, 2021 She defended her use of the term in another series of tweets. Bush referred to Black birthing people, Black women, Black mothers, Black trans people: The work we do in Congress is about saving lives. Health justice is about being inclusive, and it can be the difference between life and death for people. - Congresswoman Cori Bush (@RepCori) May 6, 2021 Trans people give birth. Gender non-conforming people give birth. I identify as a mother, but not every person who gives birth identifies as one. Everything I do is rooted in love, a love that means that everyone's identity is respected, welcomed, and celebrated. - Congresswoman Cori Bush (@RepCori) May 6, 2021 Black birthing people matter. Black women matter. Black trans people matter. Black mothers matter. It's past time for Congress to legislate like they do. - Congresswoman Cori Bush (@RepCori) May 6, 2021 In response to her tweets, the pro-choice, pro-abortion rights advocacy group NARAL explained that the term 'birthing people' was meant to be inclusive: When we talk about birthing people, we're being inclusive. It's that simple. We use gender neutral language when talking about pregnancy, because it's not just cis-gender women that can get pregnant and give birth. Reproductive freedom is for *every* body. https://t.co/9E9qKRMJTu - NARAL (@NARAL) May 6, 2021 Bush was not the only Democrat who used this language. On May 6, Rep. Ayanna Pressley used the term 'birthing people' in her reintroduction of the Maximizing Outcomes for Moms through Medicaid Improvement and Enhancement of Service Act (MOMMIES), which seeks to expand Medicaid coverage for pregnant people: The bill extends coverage for birthing people from two months to a full year after childbirth, increasing access to primary care and reproductive health providers and ensuring that all pregnant and postpartum people have full Medicaid coverage, rather than coverage that can be limited to arbitrarily picked pregnancy-related services. The Democrat-headed Committee on Oversight and Reforms has also used the term: 📢 Chair @RepMaloney was clear: Health equity for Black birthing people is attainable. WATCH as she opens @OversightDems' landmark hearing on the #BlackMaternalHealth crisis to address the racial disparities that hold Black birthing people from the health equity they deserve. pic.twitter.com/nwg5kkmkZP - Oversight Committee (@OversightDems) May 6, 2021 Referring to pregnant people in this way is becoming more common as a sign of inclusivity. A panel run by the Harvard Medical School's postgraduate program used the term 'pregnant and birthing people': Globally, ethnic minority pregnant and birthing people suffer worse outcomes and experiences during and after pregnancy and childbirth. These inequities have been further highlighted by #COVID19. Watch this panel discussion on #MaternalJustice. https://t.co/RcflQQapQo pic.twitter.com/N5m2s2SRdi - Harvard Med Postgraduate and Continuing Education (@HMSPostgradCE) November 8, 2020 The webinar panelists used the term 'birthing person' to include those who identify as non-binary or transgender because not all who give birth identify as 'women' or 'girls.' We understand the reactions to this terminology and in no way meant for it to erase or dehumanize women. - Harvard Med Postgraduate and Continuing Education (@HMSPostgradCE) November 9, 2020 In sum, Democrats as a party are not seeking to rename 'Mother's Day,' nor are they seeking to replace the word 'mother' with 'birthing people.' Many Democrats are, however, pushing for language that is inclusive of transgender and gender-nonconforming people who also give birth. While many critics claimed that this language excludes pregnant women, Bush has referred to women, mothers, and birthing people in her tweets explaining the use of inclusive terminology. Furthermore, Bush has never advocated for changing the title of 'Mother's Day,' only called for language that includes more people. We thus rate this claim as 'False.' The Trans Journalists Association has a style guide on how to write about transgender issues in the media.

In sum, Democrats as a party are not seeking to rename 'Mother's Day,' nor are they seeking to replace the word 'mother' with 'birthing people.' Many Democrats are, however, pushing for language that is inclusive of transgender and gender-nonconforming people who also give birth. While many critics claimed that this language excludes pregnant women, Bush has referred to women, mothers, and birthing people in her tweets explaining the use of inclusive terminology. Furthermore, Bush has never advocated for changing the title of 'Mother's Day,' only called for language that includes more people. We thus rate this claim as 'False.' The Trans Journalists Association has a style guide on how to write about transgender issues in the media.

Democrats are trying to change Mother's Day to Birthing People's Day.

Contradiction

Mother's Day could cease to exist, if conservatives are to be believed. On May 6, 2021, Democratic U.S. Rep. Cori Bush tweeted using the term 'birthing people' instead of 'mothers,' resulting in a flurry of criticism and mockery from conservatives, including Fox News and Newsmax anchors. Laura Ingraham's Fox News show, 'The Ingraham Angle,' tweeted: 'Democrats replace 'women' with 'birthing people.'' Democrats replace 'women' with 'birthing people.' pic.twitter.com/i39uFLKvtp - Laura Ingraham (@IngrahamAngle) May 7, 2021 Newsmax TV host Steve Cortes tweeted: 'This upcoming Sunday is no longer Mothers Day, it's Birthing Peoples' Day.' 'Birthing people.' This upcoming Sunday is no longer Mothers Day, it's Birthing Peoples' Day. https://t.co/Wkr2P7wUk6 - Steve Cortes (@CortesSteve) May 6, 2021 Republican Sen. Ted Cruz also tweeted a picture in which 'Mother's' was erased and replaced by 'Birthing People's': Happy Birthing People's Day! pic.twitter.com/2GbFenjmGr - Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) May 9, 2021 As a result of the criticism, Snopes readers asked us if this means that Democrats really are attempting to replace 'Mother's Day' with the term 'Birthing People's Day.' We learned that these claims are false. The Democratic Party has not announced, revealed, or demonstrated any plans to replace the term 'Mother's Day' with any other phrase. On May 9, 2021, Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi released a statement using only the term 'Mother's Day.' When Bush tweeted using the term 'birthing people,' it was in order to be more inclusive of transgender people, including transgender men and gender-nonconforming people who also give birth, she later explained. The controversy began with a tweet in which Bush referred to the medical challenges faced by 'Black birthing people.' Every day, Black birthing people and our babies die because our doctors don't believe our pain. My children almost became a statistic. I almost became a statistic. I testified about my experience @OversightDems today. Hear us. Believe us. Because for so long, nobody has. pic.twitter.com/rExrMXzsSQ - Congresswoman Cori Bush (@RepCori) May 6, 2021 She defended her use of the term in another series of tweets. Bush referred to Black birthing people, Black women, Black mothers, Black trans people: The work we do in Congress is about saving lives. Health justice is about being inclusive, and it can be the difference between life and death for people. - Congresswoman Cori Bush (@RepCori) May 6, 2021 Trans people give birth. Gender non-conforming people give birth. I identify as a mother, but not every person who gives birth identifies as one. Everything I do is rooted in love, a love that means that everyone's identity is respected, welcomed, and celebrated. - Congresswoman Cori Bush (@RepCori) May 6, 2021 Black birthing people matter. Black women matter. Black trans people matter. Black mothers matter. It's past time for Congress to legislate like they do. - Congresswoman Cori Bush (@RepCori) May 6, 2021 In response to her tweets, the pro-choice, pro-abortion rights advocacy group NARAL explained that the term 'birthing people' was meant to be inclusive: When we talk about birthing people, we're being inclusive. It's that simple. We use gender neutral language when talking about pregnancy, because it's not just cis-gender women that can get pregnant and give birth. Reproductive freedom is for *every* body. https://t.co/9E9qKRMJTu - NARAL (@NARAL) May 6, 2021 Bush was not the only Democrat who used this language. On May 6, Rep. Ayanna Pressley used the term 'birthing people' in her reintroduction of the Maximizing Outcomes for Moms through Medicaid Improvement and Enhancement of Service Act (MOMMIES), which seeks to expand Medicaid coverage for pregnant people: The bill extends coverage for birthing people from two months to a full year after childbirth, increasing access to primary care and reproductive health providers and ensuring that all pregnant and postpartum people have full Medicaid coverage, rather than coverage that can be limited to arbitrarily picked pregnancy-related services. The Democrat-headed Committee on Oversight and Reforms has also used the term: 📢 Chair @RepMaloney was clear: Health equity for Black birthing people is attainable. WATCH as she opens @OversightDems' landmark hearing on the #BlackMaternalHealth crisis to address the racial disparities that hold Black birthing people from the health equity they deserve. pic.twitter.com/nwg5kkmkZP - Oversight Committee (@OversightDems) May 6, 2021 Referring to pregnant people in this way is becoming more common as a sign of inclusivity. A panel run by the Harvard Medical School's postgraduate program used the term 'pregnant and birthing people': Globally, ethnic minority pregnant and birthing people suffer worse outcomes and experiences during and after pregnancy and childbirth. These inequities have been further highlighted by #COVID19. Watch this panel discussion on #MaternalJustice. https://t.co/RcflQQapQo pic.twitter.com/N5m2s2SRdi - Harvard Med Postgraduate and Continuing Education (@HMSPostgradCE) November 8, 2020 The webinar panelists used the term 'birthing person' to include those who identify as non-binary or transgender because not all who give birth identify as 'women' or 'girls.' We understand the reactions to this terminology and in no way meant for it to erase or dehumanize women. - Harvard Med Postgraduate and Continuing Education (@HMSPostgradCE) November 9, 2020 In sum, Democrats as a party are not seeking to rename 'Mother's Day,' nor are they seeking to replace the word 'mother' with 'birthing people.' Many Democrats are, however, pushing for language that is inclusive of transgender and gender-nonconforming people who also give birth. While many critics claimed that this language excludes pregnant women, Bush has referred to women, mothers, and birthing people in her tweets explaining the use of inclusive terminology. Furthermore, Bush has never advocated for changing the title of 'Mother's Day,' only called for language that includes more people. We thus rate this claim as 'False.' The Trans Journalists Association has a style guide on how to write about transgender issues in the media.

In sum, Democrats as a party are not seeking to rename 'Mother's Day,' nor are they seeking to replace the word 'mother' with 'birthing people.' Many Democrats are, however, pushing for language that is inclusive of transgender and gender-nonconforming people who also give birth. While many critics claimed that this language excludes pregnant women, Bush has referred to women, mothers, and birthing people in her tweets explaining the use of inclusive terminology. Furthermore, Bush has never advocated for changing the title of 'Mother's Day,' only called for language that includes more people. We thus rate this claim as 'False.' The Trans Journalists Association has a style guide on how to write about transgender issues in the media.

Democrats are trying to change Mother's Day to Birthing People's Day.

Contradiction

Mother's Day could cease to exist, if conservatives are to be believed. On May 6, 2021, Democratic U.S. Rep. Cori Bush tweeted using the term 'birthing people' instead of 'mothers,' resulting in a flurry of criticism and mockery from conservatives, including Fox News and Newsmax anchors. Laura Ingraham's Fox News show, 'The Ingraham Angle,' tweeted: 'Democrats replace 'women' with 'birthing people.'' Democrats replace 'women' with 'birthing people.' pic.twitter.com/i39uFLKvtp - Laura Ingraham (@IngrahamAngle) May 7, 2021 Newsmax TV host Steve Cortes tweeted: 'This upcoming Sunday is no longer Mothers Day, it's Birthing Peoples' Day.' 'Birthing people.' This upcoming Sunday is no longer Mothers Day, it's Birthing Peoples' Day. https://t.co/Wkr2P7wUk6 - Steve Cortes (@CortesSteve) May 6, 2021 Republican Sen. Ted Cruz also tweeted a picture in which 'Mother's' was erased and replaced by 'Birthing People's': Happy Birthing People's Day! pic.twitter.com/2GbFenjmGr - Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) May 9, 2021 As a result of the criticism, Snopes readers asked us if this means that Democrats really are attempting to replace 'Mother's Day' with the term 'Birthing People's Day.' We learned that these claims are false. The Democratic Party has not announced, revealed, or demonstrated any plans to replace the term 'Mother's Day' with any other phrase. On May 9, 2021, Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi released a statement using only the term 'Mother's Day.' When Bush tweeted using the term 'birthing people,' it was in order to be more inclusive of transgender people, including transgender men and gender-nonconforming people who also give birth, she later explained. The controversy began with a tweet in which Bush referred to the medical challenges faced by 'Black birthing people.' Every day, Black birthing people and our babies die because our doctors don't believe our pain. My children almost became a statistic. I almost became a statistic. I testified about my experience @OversightDems today. Hear us. Believe us. Because for so long, nobody has. pic.twitter.com/rExrMXzsSQ - Congresswoman Cori Bush (@RepCori) May 6, 2021 She defended her use of the term in another series of tweets. Bush referred to Black birthing people, Black women, Black mothers, Black trans people: The work we do in Congress is about saving lives. Health justice is about being inclusive, and it can be the difference between life and death for people. - Congresswoman Cori Bush (@RepCori) May 6, 2021 Trans people give birth. Gender non-conforming people give birth. I identify as a mother, but not every person who gives birth identifies as one. Everything I do is rooted in love, a love that means that everyone's identity is respected, welcomed, and celebrated. - Congresswoman Cori Bush (@RepCori) May 6, 2021 Black birthing people matter. Black women matter. Black trans people matter. Black mothers matter. It's past time for Congress to legislate like they do. - Congresswoman Cori Bush (@RepCori) May 6, 2021 In response to her tweets, the pro-choice, pro-abortion rights advocacy group NARAL explained that the term 'birthing people' was meant to be inclusive: When we talk about birthing people, we're being inclusive. It's that simple. We use gender neutral language when talking about pregnancy, because it's not just cis-gender women that can get pregnant and give birth. Reproductive freedom is for *every* body. https://t.co/9E9qKRMJTu - NARAL (@NARAL) May 6, 2021 Bush was not the only Democrat who used this language. On May 6, Rep. Ayanna Pressley used the term 'birthing people' in her reintroduction of the Maximizing Outcomes for Moms through Medicaid Improvement and Enhancement of Service Act (MOMMIES), which seeks to expand Medicaid coverage for pregnant people: The bill extends coverage for birthing people from two months to a full year after childbirth, increasing access to primary care and reproductive health providers and ensuring that all pregnant and postpartum people have full Medicaid coverage, rather than coverage that can be limited to arbitrarily picked pregnancy-related services. The Democrat-headed Committee on Oversight and Reforms has also used the term: 📢 Chair @RepMaloney was clear: Health equity for Black birthing people is attainable. WATCH as she opens @OversightDems' landmark hearing on the #BlackMaternalHealth crisis to address the racial disparities that hold Black birthing people from the health equity they deserve. pic.twitter.com/nwg5kkmkZP - Oversight Committee (@OversightDems) May 6, 2021 Referring to pregnant people in this way is becoming more common as a sign of inclusivity. A panel run by the Harvard Medical School's postgraduate program used the term 'pregnant and birthing people': Globally, ethnic minority pregnant and birthing people suffer worse outcomes and experiences during and after pregnancy and childbirth. These inequities have been further highlighted by #COVID19. Watch this panel discussion on #MaternalJustice. https://t.co/RcflQQapQo pic.twitter.com/N5m2s2SRdi - Harvard Med Postgraduate and Continuing Education (@HMSPostgradCE) November 8, 2020 The webinar panelists used the term 'birthing person' to include those who identify as non-binary or transgender because not all who give birth identify as 'women' or 'girls.' We understand the reactions to this terminology and in no way meant for it to erase or dehumanize women. - Harvard Med Postgraduate and Continuing Education (@HMSPostgradCE) November 9, 2020 In sum, Democrats as a party are not seeking to rename 'Mother's Day,' nor are they seeking to replace the word 'mother' with 'birthing people.' Many Democrats are, however, pushing for language that is inclusive of transgender and gender-nonconforming people who also give birth. While many critics claimed that this language excludes pregnant women, Bush has referred to women, mothers, and birthing people in her tweets explaining the use of inclusive terminology. Furthermore, Bush has never advocated for changing the title of 'Mother's Day,' only called for language that includes more people. We thus rate this claim as 'False.' The Trans Journalists Association has a style guide on how to write about transgender issues in the media.

In sum, Democrats as a party are not seeking to rename 'Mother's Day,' nor are they seeking to replace the word 'mother' with 'birthing people.' Many Democrats are, however, pushing for language that is inclusive of transgender and gender-nonconforming people who also give birth. While many critics claimed that this language excludes pregnant women, Bush has referred to women, mothers, and birthing people in her tweets explaining the use of inclusive terminology. Furthermore, Bush has never advocated for changing the title of 'Mother's Day,' only called for language that includes more people. We thus rate this claim as 'False.' The Trans Journalists Association has a style guide on how to write about transgender issues in the media.

Democrats are trying to change Mother's Day to Birthing People's Day.

Contradiction

Mother's Day could cease to exist, if conservatives are to be believed. On May 6, 2021, Democratic U.S. Rep. Cori Bush tweeted using the term 'birthing people' instead of 'mothers,' resulting in a flurry of criticism and mockery from conservatives, including Fox News and Newsmax anchors. Laura Ingraham's Fox News show, 'The Ingraham Angle,' tweeted: 'Democrats replace 'women' with 'birthing people.'' Democrats replace 'women' with 'birthing people.' pic.twitter.com/i39uFLKvtp - Laura Ingraham (@IngrahamAngle) May 7, 2021 Newsmax TV host Steve Cortes tweeted: 'This upcoming Sunday is no longer Mothers Day, it's Birthing Peoples' Day.' 'Birthing people.' This upcoming Sunday is no longer Mothers Day, it's Birthing Peoples' Day. https://t.co/Wkr2P7wUk6 - Steve Cortes (@CortesSteve) May 6, 2021 Republican Sen. Ted Cruz also tweeted a picture in which 'Mother's' was erased and replaced by 'Birthing People's': Happy Birthing People's Day! pic.twitter.com/2GbFenjmGr - Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) May 9, 2021 As a result of the criticism, Snopes readers asked us if this means that Democrats really are attempting to replace 'Mother's Day' with the term 'Birthing People's Day.' We learned that these claims are false. The Democratic Party has not announced, revealed, or demonstrated any plans to replace the term 'Mother's Day' with any other phrase. On May 9, 2021, Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi released a statement using only the term 'Mother's Day.' When Bush tweeted using the term 'birthing people,' it was in order to be more inclusive of transgender people, including transgender men and gender-nonconforming people who also give birth, she later explained. The controversy began with a tweet in which Bush referred to the medical challenges faced by 'Black birthing people.' Every day, Black birthing people and our babies die because our doctors don't believe our pain. My children almost became a statistic. I almost became a statistic. I testified about my experience @OversightDems today. Hear us. Believe us. Because for so long, nobody has. pic.twitter.com/rExrMXzsSQ - Congresswoman Cori Bush (@RepCori) May 6, 2021 She defended her use of the term in another series of tweets. Bush referred to Black birthing people, Black women, Black mothers, Black trans people: The work we do in Congress is about saving lives. Health justice is about being inclusive, and it can be the difference between life and death for people. - Congresswoman Cori Bush (@RepCori) May 6, 2021 Trans people give birth. Gender non-conforming people give birth. I identify as a mother, but not every person who gives birth identifies as one. Everything I do is rooted in love, a love that means that everyone's identity is respected, welcomed, and celebrated. - Congresswoman Cori Bush (@RepCori) May 6, 2021 Black birthing people matter. Black women matter. Black trans people matter. Black mothers matter. It's past time for Congress to legislate like they do. - Congresswoman Cori Bush (@RepCori) May 6, 2021 In response to her tweets, the pro-choice, pro-abortion rights advocacy group NARAL explained that the term 'birthing people' was meant to be inclusive: When we talk about birthing people, we're being inclusive. It's that simple. We use gender neutral language when talking about pregnancy, because it's not just cis-gender women that can get pregnant and give birth. Reproductive freedom is for *every* body. https://t.co/9E9qKRMJTu - NARAL (@NARAL) May 6, 2021 Bush was not the only Democrat who used this language. On May 6, Rep. Ayanna Pressley used the term 'birthing people' in her reintroduction of the Maximizing Outcomes for Moms through Medicaid Improvement and Enhancement of Service Act (MOMMIES), which seeks to expand Medicaid coverage for pregnant people: The bill extends coverage for birthing people from two months to a full year after childbirth, increasing access to primary care and reproductive health providers and ensuring that all pregnant and postpartum people have full Medicaid coverage, rather than coverage that can be limited to arbitrarily picked pregnancy-related services. The Democrat-headed Committee on Oversight and Reforms has also used the term: 📢 Chair @RepMaloney was clear: Health equity for Black birthing people is attainable. WATCH as she opens @OversightDems' landmark hearing on the #BlackMaternalHealth crisis to address the racial disparities that hold Black birthing people from the health equity they deserve. pic.twitter.com/nwg5kkmkZP - Oversight Committee (@OversightDems) May 6, 2021 Referring to pregnant people in this way is becoming more common as a sign of inclusivity. A panel run by the Harvard Medical School's postgraduate program used the term 'pregnant and birthing people': Globally, ethnic minority pregnant and birthing people suffer worse outcomes and experiences during and after pregnancy and childbirth. These inequities have been further highlighted by #COVID19. Watch this panel discussion on #MaternalJustice. https://t.co/RcflQQapQo pic.twitter.com/N5m2s2SRdi - Harvard Med Postgraduate and Continuing Education (@HMSPostgradCE) November 8, 2020 The webinar panelists used the term 'birthing person' to include those who identify as non-binary or transgender because not all who give birth identify as 'women' or 'girls.' We understand the reactions to this terminology and in no way meant for it to erase or dehumanize women. - Harvard Med Postgraduate and Continuing Education (@HMSPostgradCE) November 9, 2020 In sum, Democrats as a party are not seeking to rename 'Mother's Day,' nor are they seeking to replace the word 'mother' with 'birthing people.' Many Democrats are, however, pushing for language that is inclusive of transgender and gender-nonconforming people who also give birth. While many critics claimed that this language excludes pregnant women, Bush has referred to women, mothers, and birthing people in her tweets explaining the use of inclusive terminology. Furthermore, Bush has never advocated for changing the title of 'Mother's Day,' only called for language that includes more people. We thus rate this claim as 'False.' The Trans Journalists Association has a style guide on how to write about transgender issues in the media.

In sum, Democrats as a party are not seeking to rename 'Mother's Day,' nor are they seeking to replace the word 'mother' with 'birthing people.' Many Democrats are, however, pushing for language that is inclusive of transgender and gender-nonconforming people who also give birth. While many critics claimed that this language excludes pregnant women, Bush has referred to women, mothers, and birthing people in her tweets explaining the use of inclusive terminology. Furthermore, Bush has never advocated for changing the title of 'Mother's Day,' only called for language that includes more people. We thus rate this claim as 'False.' The Trans Journalists Association has a style guide on how to write about transgender issues in the media.

Democrats are trying to change Mother's Day to Birthing People's Day.

Contradiction

Mother's Day could cease to exist, if conservatives are to be believed. On May 6, 2021, Democratic U.S. Rep. Cori Bush tweeted using the term 'birthing people' instead of 'mothers,' resulting in a flurry of criticism and mockery from conservatives, including Fox News and Newsmax anchors. Laura Ingraham's Fox News show, 'The Ingraham Angle,' tweeted: 'Democrats replace 'women' with 'birthing people.'' Democrats replace 'women' with 'birthing people.' pic.twitter.com/i39uFLKvtp - Laura Ingraham (@IngrahamAngle) May 7, 2021 Newsmax TV host Steve Cortes tweeted: 'This upcoming Sunday is no longer Mothers Day, it's Birthing Peoples' Day.' 'Birthing people.' This upcoming Sunday is no longer Mothers Day, it's Birthing Peoples' Day. https://t.co/Wkr2P7wUk6 - Steve Cortes (@CortesSteve) May 6, 2021 Republican Sen. Ted Cruz also tweeted a picture in which 'Mother's' was erased and replaced by 'Birthing People's': Happy Birthing People's Day! pic.twitter.com/2GbFenjmGr - Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) May 9, 2021 As a result of the criticism, Snopes readers asked us if this means that Democrats really are attempting to replace 'Mother's Day' with the term 'Birthing People's Day.' We learned that these claims are false. The Democratic Party has not announced, revealed, or demonstrated any plans to replace the term 'Mother's Day' with any other phrase. On May 9, 2021, Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi released a statement using only the term 'Mother's Day.' When Bush tweeted using the term 'birthing people,' it was in order to be more inclusive of transgender people, including transgender men and gender-nonconforming people who also give birth, she later explained. The controversy began with a tweet in which Bush referred to the medical challenges faced by 'Black birthing people.' Every day, Black birthing people and our babies die because our doctors don't believe our pain. My children almost became a statistic. I almost became a statistic. I testified about my experience @OversightDems today. Hear us. Believe us. Because for so long, nobody has. pic.twitter.com/rExrMXzsSQ - Congresswoman Cori Bush (@RepCori) May 6, 2021 She defended her use of the term in another series of tweets. Bush referred to Black birthing people, Black women, Black mothers, Black trans people: The work we do in Congress is about saving lives. Health justice is about being inclusive, and it can be the difference between life and death for people. - Congresswoman Cori Bush (@RepCori) May 6, 2021 Trans people give birth. Gender non-conforming people give birth. I identify as a mother, but not every person who gives birth identifies as one. Everything I do is rooted in love, a love that means that everyone's identity is respected, welcomed, and celebrated. - Congresswoman Cori Bush (@RepCori) May 6, 2021 Black birthing people matter. Black women matter. Black trans people matter. Black mothers matter. It's past time for Congress to legislate like they do. - Congresswoman Cori Bush (@RepCori) May 6, 2021 In response to her tweets, the pro-choice, pro-abortion rights advocacy group NARAL explained that the term 'birthing people' was meant to be inclusive: When we talk about birthing people, we're being inclusive. It's that simple. We use gender neutral language when talking about pregnancy, because it's not just cis-gender women that can get pregnant and give birth. Reproductive freedom is for *every* body. https://t.co/9E9qKRMJTu - NARAL (@NARAL) May 6, 2021 Bush was not the only Democrat who used this language. On May 6, Rep. Ayanna Pressley used the term 'birthing people' in her reintroduction of the Maximizing Outcomes for Moms through Medicaid Improvement and Enhancement of Service Act (MOMMIES), which seeks to expand Medicaid coverage for pregnant people: The bill extends coverage for birthing people from two months to a full year after childbirth, increasing access to primary care and reproductive health providers and ensuring that all pregnant and postpartum people have full Medicaid coverage, rather than coverage that can be limited to arbitrarily picked pregnancy-related services. The Democrat-headed Committee on Oversight and Reforms has also used the term: 📢 Chair @RepMaloney was clear: Health equity for Black birthing people is attainable. WATCH as she opens @OversightDems' landmark hearing on the #BlackMaternalHealth crisis to address the racial disparities that hold Black birthing people from the health equity they deserve. pic.twitter.com/nwg5kkmkZP - Oversight Committee (@OversightDems) May 6, 2021 Referring to pregnant people in this way is becoming more common as a sign of inclusivity. A panel run by the Harvard Medical School's postgraduate program used the term 'pregnant and birthing people': Globally, ethnic minority pregnant and birthing people suffer worse outcomes and experiences during and after pregnancy and childbirth. These inequities have been further highlighted by #COVID19. Watch this panel discussion on #MaternalJustice. https://t.co/RcflQQapQo pic.twitter.com/N5m2s2SRdi - Harvard Med Postgraduate and Continuing Education (@HMSPostgradCE) November 8, 2020 The webinar panelists used the term 'birthing person' to include those who identify as non-binary or transgender because not all who give birth identify as 'women' or 'girls.' We understand the reactions to this terminology and in no way meant for it to erase or dehumanize women. - Harvard Med Postgraduate and Continuing Education (@HMSPostgradCE) November 9, 2020 In sum, Democrats as a party are not seeking to rename 'Mother's Day,' nor are they seeking to replace the word 'mother' with 'birthing people.' Many Democrats are, however, pushing for language that is inclusive of transgender and gender-nonconforming people who also give birth. While many critics claimed that this language excludes pregnant women, Bush has referred to women, mothers, and birthing people in her tweets explaining the use of inclusive terminology. Furthermore, Bush has never advocated for changing the title of 'Mother's Day,' only called for language that includes more people. We thus rate this claim as 'False.' The Trans Journalists Association has a style guide on how to write about transgender issues in the media.

In sum, Democrats as a party are not seeking to rename 'Mother's Day,' nor are they seeking to replace the word 'mother' with 'birthing people.' Many Democrats are, however, pushing for language that is inclusive of transgender and gender-nonconforming people who also give birth. While many critics claimed that this language excludes pregnant women, Bush has referred to women, mothers, and birthing people in her tweets explaining the use of inclusive terminology. Furthermore, Bush has never advocated for changing the title of 'Mother's Day,' only called for language that includes more people. We thus rate this claim as 'False.' The Trans Journalists Association has a style guide on how to write about transgender issues in the media.

Democrats are trying to change Mother's Day to Birthing People's Day.

Contradiction

Mother's Day could cease to exist, if conservatives are to be believed. On May 6, 2021, Democratic U.S. Rep. Cori Bush tweeted using the term 'birthing people' instead of 'mothers,' resulting in a flurry of criticism and mockery from conservatives, including Fox News and Newsmax anchors. Laura Ingraham's Fox News show, 'The Ingraham Angle,' tweeted: 'Democrats replace 'women' with 'birthing people.'' Democrats replace 'women' with 'birthing people.' pic.twitter.com/i39uFLKvtp - Laura Ingraham (@IngrahamAngle) May 7, 2021 Newsmax TV host Steve Cortes tweeted: 'This upcoming Sunday is no longer Mothers Day, it's Birthing Peoples' Day.' 'Birthing people.' This upcoming Sunday is no longer Mothers Day, it's Birthing Peoples' Day. https://t.co/Wkr2P7wUk6 - Steve Cortes (@CortesSteve) May 6, 2021 Republican Sen. Ted Cruz also tweeted a picture in which 'Mother's' was erased and replaced by 'Birthing People's': Happy Birthing People's Day! pic.twitter.com/2GbFenjmGr - Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) May 9, 2021 As a result of the criticism, Snopes readers asked us if this means that Democrats really are attempting to replace 'Mother's Day' with the term 'Birthing People's Day.' We learned that these claims are false. The Democratic Party has not announced, revealed, or demonstrated any plans to replace the term 'Mother's Day' with any other phrase. On May 9, 2021, Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi released a statement using only the term 'Mother's Day.' When Bush tweeted using the term 'birthing people,' it was in order to be more inclusive of transgender people, including transgender men and gender-nonconforming people who also give birth, she later explained. The controversy began with a tweet in which Bush referred to the medical challenges faced by 'Black birthing people.' Every day, Black birthing people and our babies die because our doctors don't believe our pain. My children almost became a statistic. I almost became a statistic. I testified about my experience @OversightDems today. Hear us. Believe us. Because for so long, nobody has. pic.twitter.com/rExrMXzsSQ - Congresswoman Cori Bush (@RepCori) May 6, 2021 She defended her use of the term in another series of tweets. Bush referred to Black birthing people, Black women, Black mothers, Black trans people: The work we do in Congress is about saving lives. Health justice is about being inclusive, and it can be the difference between life and death for people. - Congresswoman Cori Bush (@RepCori) May 6, 2021 Trans people give birth. Gender non-conforming people give birth. I identify as a mother, but not every person who gives birth identifies as one. Everything I do is rooted in love, a love that means that everyone's identity is respected, welcomed, and celebrated. - Congresswoman Cori Bush (@RepCori) May 6, 2021 Black birthing people matter. Black women matter. Black trans people matter. Black mothers matter. It's past time for Congress to legislate like they do. - Congresswoman Cori Bush (@RepCori) May 6, 2021 In response to her tweets, the pro-choice, pro-abortion rights advocacy group NARAL explained that the term 'birthing people' was meant to be inclusive: When we talk about birthing people, we're being inclusive. It's that simple. We use gender neutral language when talking about pregnancy, because it's not just cis-gender women that can get pregnant and give birth. Reproductive freedom is for *every* body. https://t.co/9E9qKRMJTu - NARAL (@NARAL) May 6, 2021 Bush was not the only Democrat who used this language. On May 6, Rep. Ayanna Pressley used the term 'birthing people' in her reintroduction of the Maximizing Outcomes for Moms through Medicaid Improvement and Enhancement of Service Act (MOMMIES), which seeks to expand Medicaid coverage for pregnant people: The bill extends coverage for birthing people from two months to a full year after childbirth, increasing access to primary care and reproductive health providers and ensuring that all pregnant and postpartum people have full Medicaid coverage, rather than coverage that can be limited to arbitrarily picked pregnancy-related services. The Democrat-headed Committee on Oversight and Reforms has also used the term: 📢 Chair @RepMaloney was clear: Health equity for Black birthing people is attainable. WATCH as she opens @OversightDems' landmark hearing on the #BlackMaternalHealth crisis to address the racial disparities that hold Black birthing people from the health equity they deserve. pic.twitter.com/nwg5kkmkZP - Oversight Committee (@OversightDems) May 6, 2021 Referring to pregnant people in this way is becoming more common as a sign of inclusivity. A panel run by the Harvard Medical School's postgraduate program used the term 'pregnant and birthing people': Globally, ethnic minority pregnant and birthing people suffer worse outcomes and experiences during and after pregnancy and childbirth. These inequities have been further highlighted by #COVID19. Watch this panel discussion on #MaternalJustice. https://t.co/RcflQQapQo pic.twitter.com/N5m2s2SRdi - Harvard Med Postgraduate and Continuing Education (@HMSPostgradCE) November 8, 2020 The webinar panelists used the term 'birthing person' to include those who identify as non-binary or transgender because not all who give birth identify as 'women' or 'girls.' We understand the reactions to this terminology and in no way meant for it to erase or dehumanize women. - Harvard Med Postgraduate and Continuing Education (@HMSPostgradCE) November 9, 2020 In sum, Democrats as a party are not seeking to rename 'Mother's Day,' nor are they seeking to replace the word 'mother' with 'birthing people.' Many Democrats are, however, pushing for language that is inclusive of transgender and gender-nonconforming people who also give birth. While many critics claimed that this language excludes pregnant women, Bush has referred to women, mothers, and birthing people in her tweets explaining the use of inclusive terminology. Furthermore, Bush has never advocated for changing the title of 'Mother's Day,' only called for language that includes more people. We thus rate this claim as 'False.' The Trans Journalists Association has a style guide on how to write about transgender issues in the media.

In sum, Democrats as a party are not seeking to rename 'Mother's Day,' nor are they seeking to replace the word 'mother' with 'birthing people.' Many Democrats are, however, pushing for language that is inclusive of transgender and gender-nonconforming people who also give birth. While many critics claimed that this language excludes pregnant women, Bush has referred to women, mothers, and birthing people in her tweets explaining the use of inclusive terminology. Furthermore, Bush has never advocated for changing the title of 'Mother's Day,' only called for language that includes more people. We thus rate this claim as 'False.' The Trans Journalists Association has a style guide on how to write about transgender issues in the media.

The 'Be Like Bill' Facebook craze exposes users to malware and/or was borne of nefarious intent.

Contradiction

In January 2016, a Facebook trend most commonly referenced as 'Be Like Bill' swept the social network. During that time, users initially posted comics wherein a character named 'Bill' served as a reinforcer of social media etiquette, before 'Be Like Bill' generators enabled users to create personalized versions of the meme: As is often the case with items like 'Be Like Bill' that appear seemingly from the ether and go Facebook-wide, it wasn't long before folks became suspicious of this Bill character and his purpose on their News Feeds. Soon after Bill became the meme of the day, a backlash against the meme was started: one that first simply decried the 'scolding' nature of the trend, then followed up with rumors that the ubiquitous comic was a vector for malware, information theft, or other undesirable outcomes: Bill proved so popular and omnipresent that multiple local news outlets carried reports about the potential dangers of creating a 'Be Like Bill' meme. Missouri TV station KFVS, Kansas City station KCTV (clip below), and Washington, D.C., station WTTG ran some concern-generating coverage about the specific comic, typically lumping it into the general category of 'clickbait' and associating it with the risk of all unvetted apps: It's known as 'clickbait', and if you haven't read the terms and conditions on the creator's website, the details may shock you. The company originally said in its terms of privacy, 'You will allow us to use, edit your content with our service permanently, no limit and no recover.' KFVS-TV also says, in some cases, content can contain viruses that can damage your computer, use your Facebook profile in ways you might not know, or even attempt to steal your credit card or bank account numbers. KCTV5 As the above-quoted material stated, Facebook has indeed presented a handy way for bad actors to engage in all sorts of unpleasant activities using compelling content. However, the 'in some cases' outcomes described apply to malicious apps in general and not specifically to any known vulnerabilities linked to the 'Be Like Bill' meme. Many articles cited extant Better Business Bureau warnings about rogue apps that antedated 'Be Like Bill' and referenced 'clickbait,' but the term was applied exceptionally broadly and not specifically to malware. In short, whether an item is clickbait itself has no bearing on its potential to cause harm to computers or accounts, and plenty of clickbait exists just to drive traffic to various web sites. Of additional interest (in bold) was a widely-reproduced excerpt from the Terms of Service of publisher Blobla's (who offered a mechanism for customizing 'Be Like Bob' memes) that purportedly stated end users agreed to 'allow [Blobla] to use, edit your content with our service permanently, no limit and no recover.' We were unable to verify such language ever appeared in the agreement in question, and no such wording was in the their agreement as of 27 January 2016. On 27 January 2016, Chicago station WMAQ published an article which reported that the Better Business Bureau (BBB) didn't suggest 'Be Like Bill' posed any specific threat at all to social media users and added that the President and CEO of the Better Business Bureau of Chicago and Northern Illinois Steve Bernas had confirmed only that the BBB was looking into the meme (and keeping an eye out for impostors). According to the outlet, Blobla clarified that the generator didn't require Facebook authorizations of the sort generally associated with malware or rogue apps: However, the Better Business Bureau has not yet definitely ruled whether the generated memes pose a risk to you or your computer. The sensation's creator, Bloba, on the other hand says they don't collect any data from users and their terms are the same as any others you see on Facebook. 'First, our game Be Like Bill doesn't require users to authorize a Facebook app,' a spokesperson for Bloba wrote in response. 'Of course if users want to share the results to Facebook, they must be logged in Facebook. However we use Facebook share dialog for users to share their results. It's a very common ... This doesn't allow us to collect any data from user's Facebook account.' Blobla's creators also explained that the now-elided, widely-cited verbiage ('permanently, no limit and no recover') was poorly composed and pertained to unrelated functions which might have ended up on their web site: 'Second, we do not store any information of users on our servers, as stated in our ToS,' Bloba continued. 'Third, the Terms about our right to users' content is about posts on our website (a post may be a game like Be Like Bill, or a quiz, a video...). Because our website has a function for normal users to create a post in other languages. We have removed that term to avoid misunderstanding.' On 29 January 2016, BBB communications director Katherine Hutt clarified the bureau's stance on 'Be Like Bill,' due to the multiple news reports conflating their earlier 'clickbait' warnings with that particular meme and generator: We don't issue warnings about a specific company without investigating first. Finally, outlets devoted to more detailed reporting on online security (such as Sophos' Naked Security blog) haven't issued any warnings about 'Be Like Bill' or the popular comic generator. No widespread reports of adverse outcomes have substantiated news affiliate speculation, and the bulk of 'Be Like Bill'-themed reports focused on the general ability for malware to spread through apps, not any reports definitively (or anecdotally) related to that meme specifically. While users might tire of seeing Bill across their feeds, he doesn't pose a threat to anything more than annoyance-free browsing.

In short, whether an item is clickbait itself has no bearing on its potential to cause harm to computers or accounts, and plenty of clickbait exists just to drive traffic to various web sites. Of additional interest (in bold) was a widely-reproduced excerpt from the Terms of Service of publisher Blobla's (who offered a mechanism for customizing 'Be Like Bob' memes) that purportedly stated end users agreed to 'allow [Blobla] to use, edit your content with our service permanently, no limit and no recover.' We were unable to verify such language ever appeared in the agreement in question, and no such wording was in the their agreement as of 27 January 2016. On 27 January 2016, Chicago station WMAQ published an article which reported that the Better Business Bureau (BBB) didn't suggest 'Be Like Bill' posed any specific threat at all to social media users and added that the President and CEO of the Better Business Bureau of Chicago and Northern Illinois Steve Bernas had confirmed only that the BBB was looking into the meme (and keeping an eye out for impostors). According to the outlet, Blobla clarified that the generator didn't require Facebook authorizations of the sort generally associated with malware or rogue apps: However, the Better Business Bureau has not yet definitely ruled whether the generated memes pose a risk to you or your computer. The sensation's creator, Bloba, on the other hand says they don't collect any data from users and their terms are the same as any others you see on Facebook. 'First, our game Be Like Bill doesn't require users to authorize a Facebook app,' a spokesperson for Bloba wrote in response. 'Of course if users want to share the results to Facebook, they must be logged in Facebook. However we use Facebook share dialog for users to share their results. It's a very common ... This doesn't allow us to collect any data from user's Facebook account.' Blobla's creators also explained that the now-elided, widely-cited verbiage ('permanently, no limit and no recover') was poorly composed and pertained to unrelated functions which might have ended up on their web site: 'Second, we do not store any information of users on our servers, as stated in our ToS,' Bloba continued. 'Third, the Terms about our right to users' content is about posts on our website (a post may be a game like Be Like Bill, or a quiz, a video...). Because our website has a function for normal users to create a post in other languages. We have removed that term to avoid misunderstanding.' On 29 January 2016, BBB communications director Katherine Hutt clarified the bureau's stance on 'Be Like Bill,' due to the multiple news reports conflating their earlier 'clickbait' warnings with that particular meme and generator: We don't issue warnings about a specific company without investigating first. Finally, outlets devoted to more detailed reporting on online security (such as Sophos' Naked Security blog) haven't issued any warnings about 'Be Like Bill' or the popular comic generator. No widespread reports of adverse outcomes have substantiated news affiliate speculation, and the bulk of 'Be Like Bill'-themed reports focused on the general ability for malware to spread through apps, not any reports definitively (or anecdotally) related to that meme specifically. While users might tire of seeing Bill across their feeds, he doesn't pose a threat to anything more than annoyance-free browsing.

The 'Be Like Bill' Facebook craze exposes users to malware and/or was borne of nefarious intent.

Contradiction

In January 2016, a Facebook trend most commonly referenced as 'Be Like Bill' swept the social network. During that time, users initially posted comics wherein a character named 'Bill' served as a reinforcer of social media etiquette, before 'Be Like Bill' generators enabled users to create personalized versions of the meme: As is often the case with items like 'Be Like Bill' that appear seemingly from the ether and go Facebook-wide, it wasn't long before folks became suspicious of this Bill character and his purpose on their News Feeds. Soon after Bill became the meme of the day, a backlash against the meme was started: one that first simply decried the 'scolding' nature of the trend, then followed up with rumors that the ubiquitous comic was a vector for malware, information theft, or other undesirable outcomes: Bill proved so popular and omnipresent that multiple local news outlets carried reports about the potential dangers of creating a 'Be Like Bill' meme. Missouri TV station KFVS, Kansas City station KCTV (clip below), and Washington, D.C., station WTTG ran some concern-generating coverage about the specific comic, typically lumping it into the general category of 'clickbait' and associating it with the risk of all unvetted apps: It's known as 'clickbait', and if you haven't read the terms and conditions on the creator's website, the details may shock you. The company originally said in its terms of privacy, 'You will allow us to use, edit your content with our service permanently, no limit and no recover.' KFVS-TV also says, in some cases, content can contain viruses that can damage your computer, use your Facebook profile in ways you might not know, or even attempt to steal your credit card or bank account numbers. KCTV5 As the above-quoted material stated, Facebook has indeed presented a handy way for bad actors to engage in all sorts of unpleasant activities using compelling content. However, the 'in some cases' outcomes described apply to malicious apps in general and not specifically to any known vulnerabilities linked to the 'Be Like Bill' meme. Many articles cited extant Better Business Bureau warnings about rogue apps that antedated 'Be Like Bill' and referenced 'clickbait,' but the term was applied exceptionally broadly and not specifically to malware. In short, whether an item is clickbait itself has no bearing on its potential to cause harm to computers or accounts, and plenty of clickbait exists just to drive traffic to various web sites. Of additional interest (in bold) was a widely-reproduced excerpt from the Terms of Service of publisher Blobla's (who offered a mechanism for customizing 'Be Like Bob' memes) that purportedly stated end users agreed to 'allow [Blobla] to use, edit your content with our service permanently, no limit and no recover.' We were unable to verify such language ever appeared in the agreement in question, and no such wording was in the their agreement as of 27 January 2016. On 27 January 2016, Chicago station WMAQ published an article which reported that the Better Business Bureau (BBB) didn't suggest 'Be Like Bill' posed any specific threat at all to social media users and added that the President and CEO of the Better Business Bureau of Chicago and Northern Illinois Steve Bernas had confirmed only that the BBB was looking into the meme (and keeping an eye out for impostors). According to the outlet, Blobla clarified that the generator didn't require Facebook authorizations of the sort generally associated with malware or rogue apps: However, the Better Business Bureau has not yet definitely ruled whether the generated memes pose a risk to you or your computer. The sensation's creator, Bloba, on the other hand says they don't collect any data from users and their terms are the same as any others you see on Facebook. 'First, our game Be Like Bill doesn't require users to authorize a Facebook app,' a spokesperson for Bloba wrote in response. 'Of course if users want to share the results to Facebook, they must be logged in Facebook. However we use Facebook share dialog for users to share their results. It's a very common ... This doesn't allow us to collect any data from user's Facebook account.' Blobla's creators also explained that the now-elided, widely-cited verbiage ('permanently, no limit and no recover') was poorly composed and pertained to unrelated functions which might have ended up on their web site: 'Second, we do not store any information of users on our servers, as stated in our ToS,' Bloba continued. 'Third, the Terms about our right to users' content is about posts on our website (a post may be a game like Be Like Bill, or a quiz, a video...). Because our website has a function for normal users to create a post in other languages. We have removed that term to avoid misunderstanding.' On 29 January 2016, BBB communications director Katherine Hutt clarified the bureau's stance on 'Be Like Bill,' due to the multiple news reports conflating their earlier 'clickbait' warnings with that particular meme and generator: We don't issue warnings about a specific company without investigating first. Finally, outlets devoted to more detailed reporting on online security (such as Sophos' Naked Security blog) haven't issued any warnings about 'Be Like Bill' or the popular comic generator. No widespread reports of adverse outcomes have substantiated news affiliate speculation, and the bulk of 'Be Like Bill'-themed reports focused on the general ability for malware to spread through apps, not any reports definitively (or anecdotally) related to that meme specifically. While users might tire of seeing Bill across their feeds, he doesn't pose a threat to anything more than annoyance-free browsing.

In short, whether an item is clickbait itself has no bearing on its potential to cause harm to computers or accounts, and plenty of clickbait exists just to drive traffic to various web sites. Of additional interest (in bold) was a widely-reproduced excerpt from the Terms of Service of publisher Blobla's (who offered a mechanism for customizing 'Be Like Bob' memes) that purportedly stated end users agreed to 'allow [Blobla] to use, edit your content with our service permanently, no limit and no recover.' We were unable to verify such language ever appeared in the agreement in question, and no such wording was in the their agreement as of 27 January 2016. On 27 January 2016, Chicago station WMAQ published an article which reported that the Better Business Bureau (BBB) didn't suggest 'Be Like Bill' posed any specific threat at all to social media users and added that the President and CEO of the Better Business Bureau of Chicago and Northern Illinois Steve Bernas had confirmed only that the BBB was looking into the meme (and keeping an eye out for impostors). According to the outlet, Blobla clarified that the generator didn't require Facebook authorizations of the sort generally associated with malware or rogue apps: However, the Better Business Bureau has not yet definitely ruled whether the generated memes pose a risk to you or your computer. The sensation's creator, Bloba, on the other hand says they don't collect any data from users and their terms are the same as any others you see on Facebook. 'First, our game Be Like Bill doesn't require users to authorize a Facebook app,' a spokesperson for Bloba wrote in response. 'Of course if users want to share the results to Facebook, they must be logged in Facebook. However we use Facebook share dialog for users to share their results. It's a very common ... This doesn't allow us to collect any data from user's Facebook account.' Blobla's creators also explained that the now-elided, widely-cited verbiage ('permanently, no limit and no recover') was poorly composed and pertained to unrelated functions which might have ended up on their web site: 'Second, we do not store any information of users on our servers, as stated in our ToS,' Bloba continued. 'Third, the Terms about our right to users' content is about posts on our website (a post may be a game like Be Like Bill, or a quiz, a video...). Because our website has a function for normal users to create a post in other languages. We have removed that term to avoid misunderstanding.' On 29 January 2016, BBB communications director Katherine Hutt clarified the bureau's stance on 'Be Like Bill,' due to the multiple news reports conflating their earlier 'clickbait' warnings with that particular meme and generator: We don't issue warnings about a specific company without investigating first. Finally, outlets devoted to more detailed reporting on online security (such as Sophos' Naked Security blog) haven't issued any warnings about 'Be Like Bill' or the popular comic generator. No widespread reports of adverse outcomes have substantiated news affiliate speculation, and the bulk of 'Be Like Bill'-themed reports focused on the general ability for malware to spread through apps, not any reports definitively (or anecdotally) related to that meme specifically. While users might tire of seeing Bill across their feeds, he doesn't pose a threat to anything more than annoyance-free browsing.

The 'Be Like Bill' Facebook craze exposes users to malware and/or was borne of nefarious intent.

Contradiction

In January 2016, a Facebook trend most commonly referenced as 'Be Like Bill' swept the social network. During that time, users initially posted comics wherein a character named 'Bill' served as a reinforcer of social media etiquette, before 'Be Like Bill' generators enabled users to create personalized versions of the meme: As is often the case with items like 'Be Like Bill' that appear seemingly from the ether and go Facebook-wide, it wasn't long before folks became suspicious of this Bill character and his purpose on their News Feeds. Soon after Bill became the meme of the day, a backlash against the meme was started: one that first simply decried the 'scolding' nature of the trend, then followed up with rumors that the ubiquitous comic was a vector for malware, information theft, or other undesirable outcomes: Bill proved so popular and omnipresent that multiple local news outlets carried reports about the potential dangers of creating a 'Be Like Bill' meme. Missouri TV station KFVS, Kansas City station KCTV (clip below), and Washington, D.C., station WTTG ran some concern-generating coverage about the specific comic, typically lumping it into the general category of 'clickbait' and associating it with the risk of all unvetted apps: It's known as 'clickbait', and if you haven't read the terms and conditions on the creator's website, the details may shock you. The company originally said in its terms of privacy, 'You will allow us to use, edit your content with our service permanently, no limit and no recover.' KFVS-TV also says, in some cases, content can contain viruses that can damage your computer, use your Facebook profile in ways you might not know, or even attempt to steal your credit card or bank account numbers. KCTV5 As the above-quoted material stated, Facebook has indeed presented a handy way for bad actors to engage in all sorts of unpleasant activities using compelling content. However, the 'in some cases' outcomes described apply to malicious apps in general and not specifically to any known vulnerabilities linked to the 'Be Like Bill' meme. Many articles cited extant Better Business Bureau warnings about rogue apps that antedated 'Be Like Bill' and referenced 'clickbait,' but the term was applied exceptionally broadly and not specifically to malware. In short, whether an item is clickbait itself has no bearing on its potential to cause harm to computers or accounts, and plenty of clickbait exists just to drive traffic to various web sites. Of additional interest (in bold) was a widely-reproduced excerpt from the Terms of Service of publisher Blobla's (who offered a mechanism for customizing 'Be Like Bob' memes) that purportedly stated end users agreed to 'allow [Blobla] to use, edit your content with our service permanently, no limit and no recover.' We were unable to verify such language ever appeared in the agreement in question, and no such wording was in the their agreement as of 27 January 2016. On 27 January 2016, Chicago station WMAQ published an article which reported that the Better Business Bureau (BBB) didn't suggest 'Be Like Bill' posed any specific threat at all to social media users and added that the President and CEO of the Better Business Bureau of Chicago and Northern Illinois Steve Bernas had confirmed only that the BBB was looking into the meme (and keeping an eye out for impostors). According to the outlet, Blobla clarified that the generator didn't require Facebook authorizations of the sort generally associated with malware or rogue apps: However, the Better Business Bureau has not yet definitely ruled whether the generated memes pose a risk to you or your computer. The sensation's creator, Bloba, on the other hand says they don't collect any data from users and their terms are the same as any others you see on Facebook. 'First, our game Be Like Bill doesn't require users to authorize a Facebook app,' a spokesperson for Bloba wrote in response. 'Of course if users want to share the results to Facebook, they must be logged in Facebook. However we use Facebook share dialog for users to share their results. It's a very common ... This doesn't allow us to collect any data from user's Facebook account.' Blobla's creators also explained that the now-elided, widely-cited verbiage ('permanently, no limit and no recover') was poorly composed and pertained to unrelated functions which might have ended up on their web site: 'Second, we do not store any information of users on our servers, as stated in our ToS,' Bloba continued. 'Third, the Terms about our right to users' content is about posts on our website (a post may be a game like Be Like Bill, or a quiz, a video...). Because our website has a function for normal users to create a post in other languages. We have removed that term to avoid misunderstanding.' On 29 January 2016, BBB communications director Katherine Hutt clarified the bureau's stance on 'Be Like Bill,' due to the multiple news reports conflating their earlier 'clickbait' warnings with that particular meme and generator: We don't issue warnings about a specific company without investigating first. Finally, outlets devoted to more detailed reporting on online security (such as Sophos' Naked Security blog) haven't issued any warnings about 'Be Like Bill' or the popular comic generator. No widespread reports of adverse outcomes have substantiated news affiliate speculation, and the bulk of 'Be Like Bill'-themed reports focused on the general ability for malware to spread through apps, not any reports definitively (or anecdotally) related to that meme specifically. While users might tire of seeing Bill across their feeds, he doesn't pose a threat to anything more than annoyance-free browsing.

In short, whether an item is clickbait itself has no bearing on its potential to cause harm to computers or accounts, and plenty of clickbait exists just to drive traffic to various web sites. Of additional interest (in bold) was a widely-reproduced excerpt from the Terms of Service of publisher Blobla's (who offered a mechanism for customizing 'Be Like Bob' memes) that purportedly stated end users agreed to 'allow [Blobla] to use, edit your content with our service permanently, no limit and no recover.' We were unable to verify such language ever appeared in the agreement in question, and no such wording was in the their agreement as of 27 January 2016. On 27 January 2016, Chicago station WMAQ published an article which reported that the Better Business Bureau (BBB) didn't suggest 'Be Like Bill' posed any specific threat at all to social media users and added that the President and CEO of the Better Business Bureau of Chicago and Northern Illinois Steve Bernas had confirmed only that the BBB was looking into the meme (and keeping an eye out for impostors). According to the outlet, Blobla clarified that the generator didn't require Facebook authorizations of the sort generally associated with malware or rogue apps: However, the Better Business Bureau has not yet definitely ruled whether the generated memes pose a risk to you or your computer. The sensation's creator, Bloba, on the other hand says they don't collect any data from users and their terms are the same as any others you see on Facebook. 'First, our game Be Like Bill doesn't require users to authorize a Facebook app,' a spokesperson for Bloba wrote in response. 'Of course if users want to share the results to Facebook, they must be logged in Facebook. However we use Facebook share dialog for users to share their results. It's a very common ... This doesn't allow us to collect any data from user's Facebook account.' Blobla's creators also explained that the now-elided, widely-cited verbiage ('permanently, no limit and no recover') was poorly composed and pertained to unrelated functions which might have ended up on their web site: 'Second, we do not store any information of users on our servers, as stated in our ToS,' Bloba continued. 'Third, the Terms about our right to users' content is about posts on our website (a post may be a game like Be Like Bill, or a quiz, a video...). Because our website has a function for normal users to create a post in other languages. We have removed that term to avoid misunderstanding.' On 29 January 2016, BBB communications director Katherine Hutt clarified the bureau's stance on 'Be Like Bill,' due to the multiple news reports conflating their earlier 'clickbait' warnings with that particular meme and generator: We don't issue warnings about a specific company without investigating first. Finally, outlets devoted to more detailed reporting on online security (such as Sophos' Naked Security blog) haven't issued any warnings about 'Be Like Bill' or the popular comic generator. No widespread reports of adverse outcomes have substantiated news affiliate speculation, and the bulk of 'Be Like Bill'-themed reports focused on the general ability for malware to spread through apps, not any reports definitively (or anecdotally) related to that meme specifically. While users might tire of seeing Bill across their feeds, he doesn't pose a threat to anything more than annoyance-free browsing.

The 'Be Like Bill' Facebook craze exposes users to malware and/or was borne of nefarious intent.

Contradiction

In January 2016, a Facebook trend most commonly referenced as 'Be Like Bill' swept the social network. During that time, users initially posted comics wherein a character named 'Bill' served as a reinforcer of social media etiquette, before 'Be Like Bill' generators enabled users to create personalized versions of the meme: As is often the case with items like 'Be Like Bill' that appear seemingly from the ether and go Facebook-wide, it wasn't long before folks became suspicious of this Bill character and his purpose on their News Feeds. Soon after Bill became the meme of the day, a backlash against the meme was started: one that first simply decried the 'scolding' nature of the trend, then followed up with rumors that the ubiquitous comic was a vector for malware, information theft, or other undesirable outcomes: Bill proved so popular and omnipresent that multiple local news outlets carried reports about the potential dangers of creating a 'Be Like Bill' meme. Missouri TV station KFVS, Kansas City station KCTV (clip below), and Washington, D.C., station WTTG ran some concern-generating coverage about the specific comic, typically lumping it into the general category of 'clickbait' and associating it with the risk of all unvetted apps: It's known as 'clickbait', and if you haven't read the terms and conditions on the creator's website, the details may shock you. The company originally said in its terms of privacy, 'You will allow us to use, edit your content with our service permanently, no limit and no recover.' KFVS-TV also says, in some cases, content can contain viruses that can damage your computer, use your Facebook profile in ways you might not know, or even attempt to steal your credit card or bank account numbers. KCTV5 As the above-quoted material stated, Facebook has indeed presented a handy way for bad actors to engage in all sorts of unpleasant activities using compelling content. However, the 'in some cases' outcomes described apply to malicious apps in general and not specifically to any known vulnerabilities linked to the 'Be Like Bill' meme. Many articles cited extant Better Business Bureau warnings about rogue apps that antedated 'Be Like Bill' and referenced 'clickbait,' but the term was applied exceptionally broadly and not specifically to malware. In short, whether an item is clickbait itself has no bearing on its potential to cause harm to computers or accounts, and plenty of clickbait exists just to drive traffic to various web sites. Of additional interest (in bold) was a widely-reproduced excerpt from the Terms of Service of publisher Blobla's (who offered a mechanism for customizing 'Be Like Bob' memes) that purportedly stated end users agreed to 'allow [Blobla] to use, edit your content with our service permanently, no limit and no recover.' We were unable to verify such language ever appeared in the agreement in question, and no such wording was in the their agreement as of 27 January 2016. On 27 January 2016, Chicago station WMAQ published an article which reported that the Better Business Bureau (BBB) didn't suggest 'Be Like Bill' posed any specific threat at all to social media users and added that the President and CEO of the Better Business Bureau of Chicago and Northern Illinois Steve Bernas had confirmed only that the BBB was looking into the meme (and keeping an eye out for impostors). According to the outlet, Blobla clarified that the generator didn't require Facebook authorizations of the sort generally associated with malware or rogue apps: However, the Better Business Bureau has not yet definitely ruled whether the generated memes pose a risk to you or your computer. The sensation's creator, Bloba, on the other hand says they don't collect any data from users and their terms are the same as any others you see on Facebook. 'First, our game Be Like Bill doesn't require users to authorize a Facebook app,' a spokesperson for Bloba wrote in response. 'Of course if users want to share the results to Facebook, they must be logged in Facebook. However we use Facebook share dialog for users to share their results. It's a very common ... This doesn't allow us to collect any data from user's Facebook account.' Blobla's creators also explained that the now-elided, widely-cited verbiage ('permanently, no limit and no recover') was poorly composed and pertained to unrelated functions which might have ended up on their web site: 'Second, we do not store any information of users on our servers, as stated in our ToS,' Bloba continued. 'Third, the Terms about our right to users' content is about posts on our website (a post may be a game like Be Like Bill, or a quiz, a video...). Because our website has a function for normal users to create a post in other languages. We have removed that term to avoid misunderstanding.' On 29 January 2016, BBB communications director Katherine Hutt clarified the bureau's stance on 'Be Like Bill,' due to the multiple news reports conflating their earlier 'clickbait' warnings with that particular meme and generator: We don't issue warnings about a specific company without investigating first. Finally, outlets devoted to more detailed reporting on online security (such as Sophos' Naked Security blog) haven't issued any warnings about 'Be Like Bill' or the popular comic generator. No widespread reports of adverse outcomes have substantiated news affiliate speculation, and the bulk of 'Be Like Bill'-themed reports focused on the general ability for malware to spread through apps, not any reports definitively (or anecdotally) related to that meme specifically. While users might tire of seeing Bill across their feeds, he doesn't pose a threat to anything more than annoyance-free browsing.

In short, whether an item is clickbait itself has no bearing on its potential to cause harm to computers or accounts, and plenty of clickbait exists just to drive traffic to various web sites. Of additional interest (in bold) was a widely-reproduced excerpt from the Terms of Service of publisher Blobla's (who offered a mechanism for customizing 'Be Like Bob' memes) that purportedly stated end users agreed to 'allow [Blobla] to use, edit your content with our service permanently, no limit and no recover.' We were unable to verify such language ever appeared in the agreement in question, and no such wording was in the their agreement as of 27 January 2016. On 27 January 2016, Chicago station WMAQ published an article which reported that the Better Business Bureau (BBB) didn't suggest 'Be Like Bill' posed any specific threat at all to social media users and added that the President and CEO of the Better Business Bureau of Chicago and Northern Illinois Steve Bernas had confirmed only that the BBB was looking into the meme (and keeping an eye out for impostors). According to the outlet, Blobla clarified that the generator didn't require Facebook authorizations of the sort generally associated with malware or rogue apps: However, the Better Business Bureau has not yet definitely ruled whether the generated memes pose a risk to you or your computer. The sensation's creator, Bloba, on the other hand says they don't collect any data from users and their terms are the same as any others you see on Facebook. 'First, our game Be Like Bill doesn't require users to authorize a Facebook app,' a spokesperson for Bloba wrote in response. 'Of course if users want to share the results to Facebook, they must be logged in Facebook. However we use Facebook share dialog for users to share their results. It's a very common ... This doesn't allow us to collect any data from user's Facebook account.' Blobla's creators also explained that the now-elided, widely-cited verbiage ('permanently, no limit and no recover') was poorly composed and pertained to unrelated functions which might have ended up on their web site: 'Second, we do not store any information of users on our servers, as stated in our ToS,' Bloba continued. 'Third, the Terms about our right to users' content is about posts on our website (a post may be a game like Be Like Bill, or a quiz, a video...). Because our website has a function for normal users to create a post in other languages. We have removed that term to avoid misunderstanding.' On 29 January 2016, BBB communications director Katherine Hutt clarified the bureau's stance on 'Be Like Bill,' due to the multiple news reports conflating their earlier 'clickbait' warnings with that particular meme and generator: We don't issue warnings about a specific company without investigating first. Finally, outlets devoted to more detailed reporting on online security (such as Sophos' Naked Security blog) haven't issued any warnings about 'Be Like Bill' or the popular comic generator. No widespread reports of adverse outcomes have substantiated news affiliate speculation, and the bulk of 'Be Like Bill'-themed reports focused on the general ability for malware to spread through apps, not any reports definitively (or anecdotally) related to that meme specifically. While users might tire of seeing Bill across their feeds, he doesn't pose a threat to anything more than annoyance-free browsing.

Ruby Tuesday is going out of business in 2020.

Contradiction

In 2020, the Pinterest post displayed below alleged Ruby Tuesday was going out of business before the end of the year. The post linked to a 50-page article on the website Money Pop with the headline, 'These Restaurant Chains Are Turning Off Their Burners And Closing Up Shop.' The social media post and article headline were misleading. The COVID-19 pandemic had indeed forced Ruby Tuesday to file for bankruptcy protection and close 185 branches nationwide as of fall 2020, according to court records obtained by Snopes and news reports. 'This announcement does not mean 'Goodbye, Ruby Tuesday',' CEO Shawn Lederman said in an Oct. 7 statement at the time. Another statement from the business at the time of the bankruptcy filing said it was 'pursuing a comprehensive financial and operational restructuring' to reduce debt and that it intended to overcome bankruptcy status 'as quickly as possible.' Despite the site closures, more than 230 company-owned locations remained open in addition to an undisclosed amount of branches run by 10 franchise groups, according to USA Today. No evidence showed a significant change in those numbers between the date of Ruby Tuesday's filing with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware and the publication of this report. In addition to Ruby Tuesday, the Money Pop listicle erroneously made it seem as if Taco Bell was closing in 2020 (see our fact check here), along with numerous other food businesses that were still serving customers as of this report. We should note here that, although the headline on the Money Pop was false, the text on the article appeared rooted in truth, reading: Like Friendly's, Ruby Tuesday is an East Coast chain, but this restaurant has some branches on the Pacific Coast, too. The restaurant was founded in 1972 in Knoxville, Tennessee, and has seen some major dips in revenue over the past few years. Which, unfortunately, has resulted in many of the restaurants closing. At last count, the chain has around 491 stores around the world. But according to Restaurant Business, that number is due to nearly 50% of the stores closing over the past ten years. They said it was because customers were enjoying the convenience of take-out instead of actually sitting down in a restaurant. In sum, while the pandemic had negatively impacted Ruby Tuesday, and it was true that the chain had closed numerous sites in 2020, the Money Pop headline was inaccurate to claim all locations were 'turning off their burners and closing up shop' or that the restaurant chain was going out of business.

In sum, while the pandemic had negatively impacted Ruby Tuesday, and it was true that the chain had closed numerous sites in 2020, the Money Pop headline was inaccurate to claim all locations were 'turning off their burners and closing up shop' or that the restaurant chain was going out of business.

Former first lady Michelle Obama completed coursework for a Ph.D. in law after U.S. President Barack Obama left office and her children left home.

Contradiction

Michelle Obama may have accomplished a lot since leaving the White House in 2017, but getting a Ph.D. in law was not on her to-do list. A popular internet rumor that made the rounds in June 2020 claimed the former first lady completed her research doctorate in law after U.S. President Barack Obama left office and their daughters went to college. Snopes readers asked us if this was true, and we found no evidence that she completed coursework for a Ph.D. We know that Obama graduated from Harvard Law School in 1988 with a Juris Doctor (J.D.) degree, which is a professional degree required to practice law in the United States. One usually has to have a J.D. in order to get a Ph.D in law - also known as a research doctorate - which mainly prepares students for careers as legal scholars and teachers. Obama was a practicing lawyer in the late 1980s and early '90s, but in her 2018 book 'Becoming,' she famously recounted hating the work. She told Oprah Winfrey: I was like, 'I can't do this for the rest of my life. I can't sit in a room and look at documents.' I won't get into what that is, but it's deadly. Deadly. Document production ... I'm just not happy. I don't feel my passion. Based on this recollection, it seems highly unlikely that Obama would have gone back to study more law. She did, however, receive a number of honorary doctorate degrees, which are given to outstanding non-students. In 2013, while still first lady, Obama received an Honorary Doctorate of Law from Bowie State University. Such degrees are recognition of achievement, don't require completing coursework, and recipients don't really use them for anything, mainly because such people are already so accomplished. Since departing the White House in 2017, she has written a memoir, received an honorary induction into the Academy of Arts and Sciences, and signed a production deal with Netflix. In sum, while Obama has indeed received degrees in law, including an honorary doctorate, she did not actively pursue or complete coursework for a Ph.D. in law. We thus rate this claim 'Mostly False.'

In sum, while Obama has indeed received degrees in law, including an honorary doctorate, she did not actively pursue or complete coursework for a Ph.D. in law. We thus rate this claim 'Mostly False.'

A graphic shows contradictory CNN articles about hydroxychloroquine, published three months apart and co-authored by the same person.

Contradiction

One of the many political controversies surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic of 2020 was U.S. President Donald Trump's repeated touting of the malaria drug hydroxychloroquine for treatment of the coronavirus disease, despite a lack of scientific studies and evidence demonstrating its effectiveness for that purpose. One item that circulated on social media played on that controversy by purporting to show two seemingly contradictory CNN articles about hydroxychloroquine, published three months apart and co-authored by the same person. One criticized Trump for being 'wrong' about hydroxychloroquine, and the other acknowledged that a study had found hydroxychloroquine helpful in treating coronavirus patients: However, these articles were not contradictory in content, and they were presented in a misleading manner in the above example to make them seem so. The first article, published on April 11, 2020, and written by Elizabeth Cohen and Dr. Minali Nigam, was headlined 'President Trump is wrong in so many ways about hydroxychloroquine studies. Here are the facts.' This article did not assert that hydroxychloroquine had no value whatsoever as a treatment for the coronavirus disease. Rather, it pointed out four specific ways in which Trump had made claims about hydroxychloroquine studies that were contrary to what doctors were expressing about the subject at the time: 1) How soon until we know if hydroxychloroquine works against coronavirus? Trump says 'days.' Doctors say weeks or months. 2) French researchers have already done a clinical study showing hydroxychloroquine works as a treatment for coronavirus. Doesn't that tell us something? Trump says yes. Doctors say the study was terrible, so no. 3) Have some people tried to delay hydroxychloroquine clinical trials? Trump says yes, and he came to the rescue. Doctors say they have no idea what he's talking about. 4) Is hydroxychloroquine safe for coronavirus patients? Trump says yes. Doctors say the drug can have serious side effects. The second article, published on July 3 2020, and written by Maggie Fox, Andrea Kane, and Elizabeth Cohen, had its headline deceptively truncated in the above example to remove the skepticism it expressed about a recent hydroxychloroquine study. The full headline read 'Study finds hydroxychloroquine may have boosted survival, but other researchers have doubts,' and the text of the article detailed the dispute over the study's findings: A surprising new study found the controversial antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine helped patients better survive in the hospital. But the findings, like the federal government's use of the drug itself, were disputed. A team at Henry Ford Health System in southeast Michigan said their study of 2,541 hospitalized patients found that those given hydroxychloroquine were much less likely to die. t's a surprising finding because several other studies have found no benefit from hydroxychloroquine, a drug originally developed to treat and prevent malaria. President Donald Trump touted the drug heavily, but later studies found not only did patients not do better if they got the drug, they were more likely to suffer cardiac side effects. Researchers not involved in the Henry Ford study pointed out it wasn't of the same quality of the studies showing hydroxychloroquine did not help patients, and said other treatments, such as the use of the steroid dexamethasone, might have accounted for the better survival of some patients ... They noted that the Henry Ford team did not randomly treat patients but selected them for various treatments based on certain criteria. [Eli Rosenberg, associate professor of epidemiology at the University at Albany School of Public Health] also pointed out that the Detroit paper excluded 267 patients - nearly 10% of the study population - who had not yet been discharged from the hospital. He said this might have skewed the results to make hydroxychloroquine look better than it really was. Those patients might have still been in the hospital because they were very sick, and if they died, excluding them from the study made hydroxychloroquine look like more of a lifesaver than it really was. 'There's a little bit of loosey-goosiness here in all this,' he told CNN. Other analyst likewise found the hydroxychloroquine study referenced by CNN to be dubious, for similar reasons: The study that sparked the latest controversy was anything but randomized. Not only was it not randomized, outside experts noted, but patients who received hydroxychloroquine were also more likely to get steroids, which appear to help very sick patients with Covid-19. That is likely to have influenced the central finding of the Henry Ford study: that death rates were 50% lower among patients in hospitals treated with hydroxychloroquine. Evidence that hydroxychloroquine does not help hospitalized patients - the use in its original emergency use authorization, which was designed to allow doctors to access a national stockpile of the drug - is mounting. Said [Steven Nissen, a cardiologist at the Cleveland Clinic and a longtime clinical trialist]: 'The sooner we stop talking about hydroxychloroquine, the sooner we can focus attention on more promising therapies.' In short, information about hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for the COVID-19 coronavirus disease, published by CNN in two articles in April and July of 2020, was neither contradictory nor inaccurate - despite deceptive attempts to make it look that way.

In short, information about hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for the COVID-19 coronavirus disease, published by CNN in two articles in April and July of 2020, was neither contradictory nor inaccurate - despite deceptive attempts to make it look that way.

A graphic shows contradictory CNN articles about hydroxychloroquine, published three months apart and co-authored by the same person.

Contradiction

One of the many political controversies surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic of 2020 was U.S. President Donald Trump's repeated touting of the malaria drug hydroxychloroquine for treatment of the coronavirus disease, despite a lack of scientific studies and evidence demonstrating its effectiveness for that purpose. One item that circulated on social media played on that controversy by purporting to show two seemingly contradictory CNN articles about hydroxychloroquine, published three months apart and co-authored by the same person. One criticized Trump for being 'wrong' about hydroxychloroquine, and the other acknowledged that a study had found hydroxychloroquine helpful in treating coronavirus patients: However, these articles were not contradictory in content, and they were presented in a misleading manner in the above example to make them seem so. The first article, published on April 11, 2020, and written by Elizabeth Cohen and Dr. Minali Nigam, was headlined 'President Trump is wrong in so many ways about hydroxychloroquine studies. Here are the facts.' This article did not assert that hydroxychloroquine had no value whatsoever as a treatment for the coronavirus disease. Rather, it pointed out four specific ways in which Trump had made claims about hydroxychloroquine studies that were contrary to what doctors were expressing about the subject at the time: 1) How soon until we know if hydroxychloroquine works against coronavirus? Trump says 'days.' Doctors say weeks or months. 2) French researchers have already done a clinical study showing hydroxychloroquine works as a treatment for coronavirus. Doesn't that tell us something? Trump says yes. Doctors say the study was terrible, so no. 3) Have some people tried to delay hydroxychloroquine clinical trials? Trump says yes, and he came to the rescue. Doctors say they have no idea what he's talking about. 4) Is hydroxychloroquine safe for coronavirus patients? Trump says yes. Doctors say the drug can have serious side effects. The second article, published on July 3 2020, and written by Maggie Fox, Andrea Kane, and Elizabeth Cohen, had its headline deceptively truncated in the above example to remove the skepticism it expressed about a recent hydroxychloroquine study. The full headline read 'Study finds hydroxychloroquine may have boosted survival, but other researchers have doubts,' and the text of the article detailed the dispute over the study's findings: A surprising new study found the controversial antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine helped patients better survive in the hospital. But the findings, like the federal government's use of the drug itself, were disputed. A team at Henry Ford Health System in southeast Michigan said their study of 2,541 hospitalized patients found that those given hydroxychloroquine were much less likely to die. t's a surprising finding because several other studies have found no benefit from hydroxychloroquine, a drug originally developed to treat and prevent malaria. President Donald Trump touted the drug heavily, but later studies found not only did patients not do better if they got the drug, they were more likely to suffer cardiac side effects. Researchers not involved in the Henry Ford study pointed out it wasn't of the same quality of the studies showing hydroxychloroquine did not help patients, and said other treatments, such as the use of the steroid dexamethasone, might have accounted for the better survival of some patients ... They noted that the Henry Ford team did not randomly treat patients but selected them for various treatments based on certain criteria. [Eli Rosenberg, associate professor of epidemiology at the University at Albany School of Public Health] also pointed out that the Detroit paper excluded 267 patients - nearly 10% of the study population - who had not yet been discharged from the hospital. He said this might have skewed the results to make hydroxychloroquine look better than it really was. Those patients might have still been in the hospital because they were very sick, and if they died, excluding them from the study made hydroxychloroquine look like more of a lifesaver than it really was. 'There's a little bit of loosey-goosiness here in all this,' he told CNN. Other analyst likewise found the hydroxychloroquine study referenced by CNN to be dubious, for similar reasons: The study that sparked the latest controversy was anything but randomized. Not only was it not randomized, outside experts noted, but patients who received hydroxychloroquine were also more likely to get steroids, which appear to help very sick patients with Covid-19. That is likely to have influenced the central finding of the Henry Ford study: that death rates were 50% lower among patients in hospitals treated with hydroxychloroquine. Evidence that hydroxychloroquine does not help hospitalized patients - the use in its original emergency use authorization, which was designed to allow doctors to access a national stockpile of the drug - is mounting. Said [Steven Nissen, a cardiologist at the Cleveland Clinic and a longtime clinical trialist]: 'The sooner we stop talking about hydroxychloroquine, the sooner we can focus attention on more promising therapies.' In short, information about hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for the COVID-19 coronavirus disease, published by CNN in two articles in April and July of 2020, was neither contradictory nor inaccurate - despite deceptive attempts to make it look that way.

In short, information about hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for the COVID-19 coronavirus disease, published by CNN in two articles in April and July of 2020, was neither contradictory nor inaccurate - despite deceptive attempts to make it look that way.

A graphic shows contradictory CNN articles about hydroxychloroquine, published three months apart and co-authored by the same person.

Contradiction

One of the many political controversies surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic of 2020 was U.S. President Donald Trump's repeated touting of the malaria drug hydroxychloroquine for treatment of the coronavirus disease, despite a lack of scientific studies and evidence demonstrating its effectiveness for that purpose. One item that circulated on social media played on that controversy by purporting to show two seemingly contradictory CNN articles about hydroxychloroquine, published three months apart and co-authored by the same person. One criticized Trump for being 'wrong' about hydroxychloroquine, and the other acknowledged that a study had found hydroxychloroquine helpful in treating coronavirus patients: However, these articles were not contradictory in content, and they were presented in a misleading manner in the above example to make them seem so. The first article, published on April 11, 2020, and written by Elizabeth Cohen and Dr. Minali Nigam, was headlined 'President Trump is wrong in so many ways about hydroxychloroquine studies. Here are the facts.' This article did not assert that hydroxychloroquine had no value whatsoever as a treatment for the coronavirus disease. Rather, it pointed out four specific ways in which Trump had made claims about hydroxychloroquine studies that were contrary to what doctors were expressing about the subject at the time: 1) How soon until we know if hydroxychloroquine works against coronavirus? Trump says 'days.' Doctors say weeks or months. 2) French researchers have already done a clinical study showing hydroxychloroquine works as a treatment for coronavirus. Doesn't that tell us something? Trump says yes. Doctors say the study was terrible, so no. 3) Have some people tried to delay hydroxychloroquine clinical trials? Trump says yes, and he came to the rescue. Doctors say they have no idea what he's talking about. 4) Is hydroxychloroquine safe for coronavirus patients? Trump says yes. Doctors say the drug can have serious side effects. The second article, published on July 3 2020, and written by Maggie Fox, Andrea Kane, and Elizabeth Cohen, had its headline deceptively truncated in the above example to remove the skepticism it expressed about a recent hydroxychloroquine study. The full headline read 'Study finds hydroxychloroquine may have boosted survival, but other researchers have doubts,' and the text of the article detailed the dispute over the study's findings: A surprising new study found the controversial antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine helped patients better survive in the hospital. But the findings, like the federal government's use of the drug itself, were disputed. A team at Henry Ford Health System in southeast Michigan said their study of 2,541 hospitalized patients found that those given hydroxychloroquine were much less likely to die. t's a surprising finding because several other studies have found no benefit from hydroxychloroquine, a drug originally developed to treat and prevent malaria. President Donald Trump touted the drug heavily, but later studies found not only did patients not do better if they got the drug, they were more likely to suffer cardiac side effects. Researchers not involved in the Henry Ford study pointed out it wasn't of the same quality of the studies showing hydroxychloroquine did not help patients, and said other treatments, such as the use of the steroid dexamethasone, might have accounted for the better survival of some patients ... They noted that the Henry Ford team did not randomly treat patients but selected them for various treatments based on certain criteria. [Eli Rosenberg, associate professor of epidemiology at the University at Albany School of Public Health] also pointed out that the Detroit paper excluded 267 patients - nearly 10% of the study population - who had not yet been discharged from the hospital. He said this might have skewed the results to make hydroxychloroquine look better than it really was. Those patients might have still been in the hospital because they were very sick, and if they died, excluding them from the study made hydroxychloroquine look like more of a lifesaver than it really was. 'There's a little bit of loosey-goosiness here in all this,' he told CNN. Other analyst likewise found the hydroxychloroquine study referenced by CNN to be dubious, for similar reasons: The study that sparked the latest controversy was anything but randomized. Not only was it not randomized, outside experts noted, but patients who received hydroxychloroquine were also more likely to get steroids, which appear to help very sick patients with Covid-19. That is likely to have influenced the central finding of the Henry Ford study: that death rates were 50% lower among patients in hospitals treated with hydroxychloroquine. Evidence that hydroxychloroquine does not help hospitalized patients - the use in its original emergency use authorization, which was designed to allow doctors to access a national stockpile of the drug - is mounting. Said [Steven Nissen, a cardiologist at the Cleveland Clinic and a longtime clinical trialist]: 'The sooner we stop talking about hydroxychloroquine, the sooner we can focus attention on more promising therapies.' In short, information about hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for the COVID-19 coronavirus disease, published by CNN in two articles in April and July of 2020, was neither contradictory nor inaccurate - despite deceptive attempts to make it look that way.

In short, information about hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for the COVID-19 coronavirus disease, published by CNN in two articles in April and July of 2020, was neither contradictory nor inaccurate - despite deceptive attempts to make it look that way.

Donald Trump said his favorite song was 'Iris' by the Goo Goo Dolls.

Contradiction

On Sept. 29, 2021, TikTok user @restroomuser posted a new video that claimed U.S. President Donald Trump told The Associated Press in 2018 that his favorite song was 'Iris' by the Goo Goo Dolls. @restroomuser wonder if he likes the phoebe and maggie cover #trump #googoodolls #iris #trump2020 ♬ Iris - The Goo Goo Dolls The video was viewed nearly 500,000 times in 24 hours. The vast majority of comments showed that many viewers believed the claim to be true. Some commenters also noted that part of the lyrics for the song contained the words, 'I just want you to know who I am,' which they related to Trump's personality. However, the video was nothing more than a joke. Trump's Associated Press interview from Oct. 16, 2018, mentioned nothing about a 'favorite song' or 'Iris' by the Goo Goo Dolls. According to a BBC News article from October 2020, Trump's real favorite song is Peggy Lee's 'Is That All There Is?' BBC News reported on the meaning of the song, and how Trump connected it to his own life: The president is a big fan of The Rolling Stones, Eminem and Elton John (a decidedly one-way relationship), but his favourite song is Peggy Lee's Is That All There Is? It's an interesting choice: Lee's nihilistic ballad essentially says life is a series of meaningless disappointments, so you might as well drink away your sorrows and forget about the rest of the world. Mr. Trump sees it differently. 'It's a great song because I've had these tremendous successes and then I'm off to the next one. Because, it's like, 'Oh, is that all there is?'' he told his biographer Michael D'Antonio, in 2014. In sum, Trump's favorite song was not 'Iris' by the Goo Goo Dolls. The TikTok video that made the claim was simply a joke.

In sum, Trump's favorite song was not 'Iris' by the Goo Goo Dolls. The TikTok video that made the claim was simply a joke.

Donald Trump said his favorite song was 'Iris' by the Goo Goo Dolls.

Contradiction

On Sept. 29, 2021, TikTok user @restroomuser posted a new video that claimed U.S. President Donald Trump told The Associated Press in 2018 that his favorite song was 'Iris' by the Goo Goo Dolls. @restroomuser wonder if he likes the phoebe and maggie cover #trump #googoodolls #iris #trump2020 ♬ Iris - The Goo Goo Dolls The video was viewed nearly 500,000 times in 24 hours. The vast majority of comments showed that many viewers believed the claim to be true. Some commenters also noted that part of the lyrics for the song contained the words, 'I just want you to know who I am,' which they related to Trump's personality. However, the video was nothing more than a joke. Trump's Associated Press interview from Oct. 16, 2018, mentioned nothing about a 'favorite song' or 'Iris' by the Goo Goo Dolls. According to a BBC News article from October 2020, Trump's real favorite song is Peggy Lee's 'Is That All There Is?' BBC News reported on the meaning of the song, and how Trump connected it to his own life: The president is a big fan of The Rolling Stones, Eminem and Elton John (a decidedly one-way relationship), but his favourite song is Peggy Lee's Is That All There Is? It's an interesting choice: Lee's nihilistic ballad essentially says life is a series of meaningless disappointments, so you might as well drink away your sorrows and forget about the rest of the world. Mr. Trump sees it differently. 'It's a great song because I've had these tremendous successes and then I'm off to the next one. Because, it's like, 'Oh, is that all there is?'' he told his biographer Michael D'Antonio, in 2014. In sum, Trump's favorite song was not 'Iris' by the Goo Goo Dolls. The TikTok video that made the claim was simply a joke.

In sum, Trump's favorite song was not 'Iris' by the Goo Goo Dolls. The TikTok video that made the claim was simply a joke.

Donald Trump said his favorite song was 'Iris' by the Goo Goo Dolls.

Contradiction

On Sept. 29, 2021, TikTok user @restroomuser posted a new video that claimed U.S. President Donald Trump told The Associated Press in 2018 that his favorite song was 'Iris' by the Goo Goo Dolls. @restroomuser wonder if he likes the phoebe and maggie cover #trump #googoodolls #iris #trump2020 ♬ Iris - The Goo Goo Dolls The video was viewed nearly 500,000 times in 24 hours. The vast majority of comments showed that many viewers believed the claim to be true. Some commenters also noted that part of the lyrics for the song contained the words, 'I just want you to know who I am,' which they related to Trump's personality. However, the video was nothing more than a joke. Trump's Associated Press interview from Oct. 16, 2018, mentioned nothing about a 'favorite song' or 'Iris' by the Goo Goo Dolls. According to a BBC News article from October 2020, Trump's real favorite song is Peggy Lee's 'Is That All There Is?' BBC News reported on the meaning of the song, and how Trump connected it to his own life: The president is a big fan of The Rolling Stones, Eminem and Elton John (a decidedly one-way relationship), but his favourite song is Peggy Lee's Is That All There Is? It's an interesting choice: Lee's nihilistic ballad essentially says life is a series of meaningless disappointments, so you might as well drink away your sorrows and forget about the rest of the world. Mr. Trump sees it differently. 'It's a great song because I've had these tremendous successes and then I'm off to the next one. Because, it's like, 'Oh, is that all there is?'' he told his biographer Michael D'Antonio, in 2014. In sum, Trump's favorite song was not 'Iris' by the Goo Goo Dolls. The TikTok video that made the claim was simply a joke.

In sum, Trump's favorite song was not 'Iris' by the Goo Goo Dolls. The TikTok video that made the claim was simply a joke.

U.S. President Barack Obama waited until millions were infected and thousands were dead before declaring a public health emergency concerning swine flu, the H1N1 virus.

Contradiction

On Feb. 28, 2020, the website PJ Media published an article claiming that U.S. President Barack Obama had waited until millions were infected and thousands were dead from swine flu, the H1N1 virus, before declaring a public health emergency in 2009. The article, which was presented as a 'fact check,' got several simple details wrong. In response to criticism of U.S. President Donald Trump's handling of a recent outbreak of a new coronavirus, the PJ Media article opined that Obama had been lackadaisical about his response to a health emergency back in 2009, and that Trump by comparison had done his job admirably. PJ Media writes: Surely, St. Barack of Obama would have dealt with this horrible pandemic better than Orange Man Bad, right? No-Drama-Obama had this whole thing under control, of course! Well, let's compare and contrast... Now, let's go to the Wayback Machine. In April of 2009, the H1N1 became a pandemic. But it wasn't until six months later, October, that then-President Obama declared a public health emergency on what was already a pandemic. By that time, the disease had infected millions of Americans and more than 1,000 people had died in the U.S. There are several factual inaccuracies in this excerpt alone. For instance, PJ media writes that H1N1 became a pandemic in April 2009. But that's not the case. The disease emerged in April but wasn't declared a pandemic until June. The excerpt also claims that Obama 'declared a public health emergency on what was already a pandemic' in October 2009. But this is also wrong. Obama declared a national emergency, not a public health emergency, in October 2009. The Obama administration declared a public health emergency in April, months before swine flu was declared a pandemic. At the time that the Obama administration declared a public health emergency, only 20 confirmed cases (not over a million) of H1N1 existed in the United States. The New York Times reported on April 26, 2009: Responding to what some health officials feared could be the leading edge of a global pandemic emerging from Mexico, American health officials declared a public health emergency on Sunday as 20 cases of swine flu were confirmed in this country, including eight in New York City. [...] The emergency declaration in the United States lets the government free more money for antiviral drugs and give some previously unapproved tests and drugs to children. One-quarter of the national stockpile of 50 million courses of antiflu drugs will be released. PJ Media also inaccurately presented a video in the article as if it showed Obama addressing the swine flu after it had 'already become a pandemic.' Again, that simply isn't the case. When Obama addressed the nation about swine flu, or H1N1, in April 2009, the disease was just starting to spread. It wouldn't be until June 2009 that the swine flu would be declared a pandemic. Here's Obama's April 2009 address: The swine flu pandemic spread quickly across the United States starting in April 2009. There were approximately 60 million cases over the course of the following year, which resulted in nearly 275,000 hospitalizations and more than 12,000 deaths. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has a detailed timeline of this pandemic on its website. It shows that the CDC first activated its Emergency Operations Center (EOC) on April 22, 2009. At the time, there were only two confirmed cases in the United States. On April 25, 2009, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared a public health emergency of international concern, and the following day the Obama administration did the same. At that time, there were about 20 confirmed cases. Despite the CDC's efforts, the swine flu continued to spread. Kathleen Sebelius, secretary of health and human services, renewed the emergency declaration on July 24, 2009, and then again on Oct. 1, 2009. On Oct. 24, 2009, Obama declared a national emergency that gave officials more resources to fight the pandemic. The Associated Press reported: President Barack Obama has declared the swine flu outbreak a national emergency, giving his health chief the power to let hospitals move emergency rooms offsite to speed treatment and protect noninfected patients. The declaration, signed Friday night and announced Saturday, comes with the disease more prevalent than ever in the country and production delays undercutting the government's initial, optimistic estimates that as many as 120 million doses of the vaccine could be available by mid-October. [...] On April 26, the administration declared swine flu a public health emergency, allowing the shipment of roughly 12 million doses of flu-fighting medications from a federal stockpile to states in case they eventually needed them. At the time, there were 20 confirmed cases in the U.S. of people recovering easily. There was no vaccine against swine flu, but the CDC had taken the initial step necessary for producing one. 'As a nation, we have prepared at all levels of government, and as individuals and communities, taking unprecedented steps to counter the emerging pandemic,' Obama wrote in Saturday's declaration. In sum, the PJ Media article claimed that Obama 'waited' until millions of people were infected with H1N1 before he declared an 'emergency.' But that isn't the case. The Obama administration started to address H1N1 just as the disease emerged in April 2009. A public health emergency was declared on April 26, 2009, when there were about 20 confirmed cases in the United States. The Obama administration renewed this declaration twice in the ensuing months before declaring a national emergency in October 2009.

In sum, the PJ Media article claimed that Obama 'waited' until millions of people were infected with H1N1 before he declared an 'emergency.' But that isn't the case. The Obama administration started to address H1N1 just as the disease emerged in April 2009. A public health emergency was declared on April 26, 2009, when there were about 20 confirmed cases in the United States. The Obama administration renewed this declaration twice in the ensuing months before declaring a national emergency in October 2009.

U.S. President Barack Obama waited until millions were infected and thousands were dead before declaring a public health emergency concerning swine flu, the H1N1 virus.

Contradiction

On Feb. 28, 2020, the website PJ Media published an article claiming that U.S. President Barack Obama had waited until millions were infected and thousands were dead from swine flu, the H1N1 virus, before declaring a public health emergency in 2009. The article, which was presented as a 'fact check,' got several simple details wrong. In response to criticism of U.S. President Donald Trump's handling of a recent outbreak of a new coronavirus, the PJ Media article opined that Obama had been lackadaisical about his response to a health emergency back in 2009, and that Trump by comparison had done his job admirably. PJ Media writes: Surely, St. Barack of Obama would have dealt with this horrible pandemic better than Orange Man Bad, right? No-Drama-Obama had this whole thing under control, of course! Well, let's compare and contrast... Now, let's go to the Wayback Machine. In April of 2009, the H1N1 became a pandemic. But it wasn't until six months later, October, that then-President Obama declared a public health emergency on what was already a pandemic. By that time, the disease had infected millions of Americans and more than 1,000 people had died in the U.S. There are several factual inaccuracies in this excerpt alone. For instance, PJ media writes that H1N1 became a pandemic in April 2009. But that's not the case. The disease emerged in April but wasn't declared a pandemic until June. The excerpt also claims that Obama 'declared a public health emergency on what was already a pandemic' in October 2009. But this is also wrong. Obama declared a national emergency, not a public health emergency, in October 2009. The Obama administration declared a public health emergency in April, months before swine flu was declared a pandemic. At the time that the Obama administration declared a public health emergency, only 20 confirmed cases (not over a million) of H1N1 existed in the United States. The New York Times reported on April 26, 2009: Responding to what some health officials feared could be the leading edge of a global pandemic emerging from Mexico, American health officials declared a public health emergency on Sunday as 20 cases of swine flu were confirmed in this country, including eight in New York City. [...] The emergency declaration in the United States lets the government free more money for antiviral drugs and give some previously unapproved tests and drugs to children. One-quarter of the national stockpile of 50 million courses of antiflu drugs will be released. PJ Media also inaccurately presented a video in the article as if it showed Obama addressing the swine flu after it had 'already become a pandemic.' Again, that simply isn't the case. When Obama addressed the nation about swine flu, or H1N1, in April 2009, the disease was just starting to spread. It wouldn't be until June 2009 that the swine flu would be declared a pandemic. Here's Obama's April 2009 address: The swine flu pandemic spread quickly across the United States starting in April 2009. There were approximately 60 million cases over the course of the following year, which resulted in nearly 275,000 hospitalizations and more than 12,000 deaths. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has a detailed timeline of this pandemic on its website. It shows that the CDC first activated its Emergency Operations Center (EOC) on April 22, 2009. At the time, there were only two confirmed cases in the United States. On April 25, 2009, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared a public health emergency of international concern, and the following day the Obama administration did the same. At that time, there were about 20 confirmed cases. Despite the CDC's efforts, the swine flu continued to spread. Kathleen Sebelius, secretary of health and human services, renewed the emergency declaration on July 24, 2009, and then again on Oct. 1, 2009. On Oct. 24, 2009, Obama declared a national emergency that gave officials more resources to fight the pandemic. The Associated Press reported: President Barack Obama has declared the swine flu outbreak a national emergency, giving his health chief the power to let hospitals move emergency rooms offsite to speed treatment and protect noninfected patients. The declaration, signed Friday night and announced Saturday, comes with the disease more prevalent than ever in the country and production delays undercutting the government's initial, optimistic estimates that as many as 120 million doses of the vaccine could be available by mid-October. [...] On April 26, the administration declared swine flu a public health emergency, allowing the shipment of roughly 12 million doses of flu-fighting medications from a federal stockpile to states in case they eventually needed them. At the time, there were 20 confirmed cases in the U.S. of people recovering easily. There was no vaccine against swine flu, but the CDC had taken the initial step necessary for producing one. 'As a nation, we have prepared at all levels of government, and as individuals and communities, taking unprecedented steps to counter the emerging pandemic,' Obama wrote in Saturday's declaration. In sum, the PJ Media article claimed that Obama 'waited' until millions of people were infected with H1N1 before he declared an 'emergency.' But that isn't the case. The Obama administration started to address H1N1 just as the disease emerged in April 2009. A public health emergency was declared on April 26, 2009, when there were about 20 confirmed cases in the United States. The Obama administration renewed this declaration twice in the ensuing months before declaring a national emergency in October 2009.

In sum, the PJ Media article claimed that Obama 'waited' until millions of people were infected with H1N1 before he declared an 'emergency.' But that isn't the case. The Obama administration started to address H1N1 just as the disease emerged in April 2009. A public health emergency was declared on April 26, 2009, when there were about 20 confirmed cases in the United States. The Obama administration renewed this declaration twice in the ensuing months before declaring a national emergency in October 2009.

U.S. President Barack Obama waited until millions were infected and thousands were dead before declaring a public health emergency concerning swine flu, the H1N1 virus.

Contradiction

On Feb. 28, 2020, the website PJ Media published an article claiming that U.S. President Barack Obama had waited until millions were infected and thousands were dead from swine flu, the H1N1 virus, before declaring a public health emergency in 2009. The article, which was presented as a 'fact check,' got several simple details wrong. In response to criticism of U.S. President Donald Trump's handling of a recent outbreak of a new coronavirus, the PJ Media article opined that Obama had been lackadaisical about his response to a health emergency back in 2009, and that Trump by comparison had done his job admirably. PJ Media writes: Surely, St. Barack of Obama would have dealt with this horrible pandemic better than Orange Man Bad, right? No-Drama-Obama had this whole thing under control, of course! Well, let's compare and contrast... Now, let's go to the Wayback Machine. In April of 2009, the H1N1 became a pandemic. But it wasn't until six months later, October, that then-President Obama declared a public health emergency on what was already a pandemic. By that time, the disease had infected millions of Americans and more than 1,000 people had died in the U.S. There are several factual inaccuracies in this excerpt alone. For instance, PJ media writes that H1N1 became a pandemic in April 2009. But that's not the case. The disease emerged in April but wasn't declared a pandemic until June. The excerpt also claims that Obama 'declared a public health emergency on what was already a pandemic' in October 2009. But this is also wrong. Obama declared a national emergency, not a public health emergency, in October 2009. The Obama administration declared a public health emergency in April, months before swine flu was declared a pandemic. At the time that the Obama administration declared a public health emergency, only 20 confirmed cases (not over a million) of H1N1 existed in the United States. The New York Times reported on April 26, 2009: Responding to what some health officials feared could be the leading edge of a global pandemic emerging from Mexico, American health officials declared a public health emergency on Sunday as 20 cases of swine flu were confirmed in this country, including eight in New York City. [...] The emergency declaration in the United States lets the government free more money for antiviral drugs and give some previously unapproved tests and drugs to children. One-quarter of the national stockpile of 50 million courses of antiflu drugs will be released. PJ Media also inaccurately presented a video in the article as if it showed Obama addressing the swine flu after it had 'already become a pandemic.' Again, that simply isn't the case. When Obama addressed the nation about swine flu, or H1N1, in April 2009, the disease was just starting to spread. It wouldn't be until June 2009 that the swine flu would be declared a pandemic. Here's Obama's April 2009 address: The swine flu pandemic spread quickly across the United States starting in April 2009. There were approximately 60 million cases over the course of the following year, which resulted in nearly 275,000 hospitalizations and more than 12,000 deaths. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has a detailed timeline of this pandemic on its website. It shows that the CDC first activated its Emergency Operations Center (EOC) on April 22, 2009. At the time, there were only two confirmed cases in the United States. On April 25, 2009, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared a public health emergency of international concern, and the following day the Obama administration did the same. At that time, there were about 20 confirmed cases. Despite the CDC's efforts, the swine flu continued to spread. Kathleen Sebelius, secretary of health and human services, renewed the emergency declaration on July 24, 2009, and then again on Oct. 1, 2009. On Oct. 24, 2009, Obama declared a national emergency that gave officials more resources to fight the pandemic. The Associated Press reported: President Barack Obama has declared the swine flu outbreak a national emergency, giving his health chief the power to let hospitals move emergency rooms offsite to speed treatment and protect noninfected patients. The declaration, signed Friday night and announced Saturday, comes with the disease more prevalent than ever in the country and production delays undercutting the government's initial, optimistic estimates that as many as 120 million doses of the vaccine could be available by mid-October. [...] On April 26, the administration declared swine flu a public health emergency, allowing the shipment of roughly 12 million doses of flu-fighting medications from a federal stockpile to states in case they eventually needed them. At the time, there were 20 confirmed cases in the U.S. of people recovering easily. There was no vaccine against swine flu, but the CDC had taken the initial step necessary for producing one. 'As a nation, we have prepared at all levels of government, and as individuals and communities, taking unprecedented steps to counter the emerging pandemic,' Obama wrote in Saturday's declaration. In sum, the PJ Media article claimed that Obama 'waited' until millions of people were infected with H1N1 before he declared an 'emergency.' But that isn't the case. The Obama administration started to address H1N1 just as the disease emerged in April 2009. A public health emergency was declared on April 26, 2009, when there were about 20 confirmed cases in the United States. The Obama administration renewed this declaration twice in the ensuing months before declaring a national emergency in October 2009.

In sum, the PJ Media article claimed that Obama 'waited' until millions of people were infected with H1N1 before he declared an 'emergency.' But that isn't the case. The Obama administration started to address H1N1 just as the disease emerged in April 2009. A public health emergency was declared on April 26, 2009, when there were about 20 confirmed cases in the United States. The Obama administration renewed this declaration twice in the ensuing months before declaring a national emergency in October 2009.

An image shows Melania Trump and Ivanka Trump wearing see-through shirts.

Contradiction

In December 2016, an image purportedly showing Ivanka Trump and Melania Trump wearing tops through which you could clearly see their breasts appeared on social media, and was shared along with sociopolitical commentary: Neither of these photographs are real; both images were doctored to make it appear as if the two women are wearing clothing to show their breasts. The photograph on the left was actually taken in 2007 at an after-party for the Golden Globes: Socialite Ivanka Trump arrives at the NBC/Universal Golden Globe After Party held at the Beverly Hilton on January 15, 2007 in Beverly Hills, California. The photograph on the right was taken in January 2013 at Mar-A-Lago in Florida: It is also easy to see the digital manipulation if you take a close look at the edges of the shirts in the doctored images.

In December 2016, an image purportedly showing Ivanka Trump and Melania Trump wearing tops through which you could clearly see their breasts appeared on social media, and was shared along with sociopolitical commentary: Neither of these photographs are real; both images were doctored to make it appear as if the two women are wearing clothing to show their breasts. The photograph on the left was actually taken in 2007 at an after-party for the Golden Globes: Socialite Ivanka Trump arrives at the NBC/Universal Golden Globe After Party held at the Beverly Hilton on January 15, 2007 in Beverly Hills, California. The photograph on the right was taken in January 2013 at Mar-A-Lago in Florida: It is also easy to see the digital manipulation if you take a close look at the edges of the shirts in the doctored images.

Poll workers in Georgia's Senate runoff election illegally uncovered 50,000 ballots in the early morning hours of Jan. 6, 2021.

Contradiction

Shortly after Democrat Raphael Warnock was announced the winner of one of Georgia's two Senate runoff races on Jan. 6, 2021, putting the Senate majority within the party's reach, U.S. President Donald Trump attempted to cast doubt on the integrity of the election by claiming poll workers mysteriously uncovered 50,000 ballots overnight. He said in a tweet: They just happened to find 50,000 ballots late last night. The USA is embarrassed by fools. Our Election Process is worse than that of third world countries. The post was part of the president's long-spanning misinformation campaign (including the above-displayed tweet) to convince Americans of an illicit, coordinated scheme by Trump's political enemies to undermine him, even though nothing of the sort was taking place. Snopes debunked similar assertions by Trump that secretive late-night vote 'dumps' helped his opponent in the 2020 presidential election, Democrat Joe Biden, win key battleground states. As was the case then, Georgia voters' heavy reliance on mail-in voting instead of in-person polls - to reduce the risk of catching COVID-19 - increased the chances of voting results shifting significantly late at night, as poll workers counted more ballots. That phenomenon was not a result of a conspiracy against Trump, but rather a product of a Georgia law that prohibits poll workers from counting any ballots until after polls close. The Associated Press reported on Jan. 4, the day before the special election: Absentee ballots must be received by the close of polls to be counted. Military and overseas ballots postmarked by Tuesday and received by Friday will be counted, and absentee voters also have until Friday to fix any problems so their votes can be counted. No ballots, including absentee ballots received in advance of Election Day, can be counted until the polls close. [...] In a close contest, look for the Republican candidate to jump out to an early lead. That due to two factors: First, Republican areas of the state usually report their results first. Second, Republican voters have been more likely to vote in person, either on Election Day or during the early voting period. Many counties release those in-person results first. Meanwhile, heavily Democratic counties, including Fulton, DeKalb and Chatham counties, historically take longer to count votes. In regards to the president's assertion regarding a 'dump' of 50,000 ballots to supposedly undermine Republican candidates Sens. Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue, specifically, Snopes found no evidence to support the allegation of voter fraud, and Georgia election officials refuted such claims. 'Election Day for the Georgia Senate runoffs has progressed with few issues and almost nonexistent wait times,' the Georgia Secretary of State said in a news release. Below is our evidence for that conclusion. Just hours after polls closed, some elections officials statewide finished processing and tabulating ballots, and the public learned which candidate received the majority of votes in those counties. Meanwhile, ballot counting in other precincts remained ongoing. The Atlanta Journal Constitution reported at 9:30 p.m.: It's still early, but Republicans are increasingly antsy about their chances. Early returns are showing U.S. Sen. Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue underperforming in important GOP strongholds in rural areas and the exurbs. And turnout in Democratic bastions is nearing November general election levels in some left-leaning rural counties that have already reported most of their results. By 11 p.m., the newspaper said, election workers had tallied more than 300,000 votes, and only a small number of precincts were outstanding. Shortly afterwards, as Atlanta's DeKalb County uploaded its voter tallies, some news outlets, including Vox, declared Warnock the winner. He led Loeffler by about 37,000 votes, with 97% precincts reporting, according to the AJC. 'Of the outstanding votes left to count, many were expected to come in from Democratic strongholds in DeKalb and Fulton counties,' the newspaper reported. At 12:49 a.m., NBC was the first major news network to announce Loeffler had no statistical chance of overcoming Warnock's margin of victory. National news outlets including The Associated Press, CNN, and ABC News quickly followed suit. At 2 a.m. the AJC reported Fulton County election officials were calling it a night and preparing to count the last rounds of ballots in the morning. In all, about 25,000 mail-in ballots remained uncounted across the state, with the bulk in the Atlanta metro area, according to preliminary estimates from the Secretary of State's office. In other words, voting spikes occurred over the course of hours, late at night, for predictable reasons. Counting in multiple Democratic strongholds, as well as several smaller and more conservative-leaning counties, resumed by 6:45 a.m. on Jan. 6, according to the newspaper. Shortly after the president's tweet about poll workers nefariously 'finding' 50,000 ballots, Gabriel Sterling, a Republican who oversees voting systems for the secretary of state's office, highlighted evidence showing typical voter returns based on the state's estimated number of absentee voters. He said in a tweet: No Mr. President, there weren't 'found' ballots. We have known the number of advanced votes since this weekend. We saw record Election Day turnout. As of Monday 970,000 absentees had been accepted. 31k more were added in yesterday's totals. That leaves 60k that came in yesterday. In sum, considering Sterling's direct refutation of Trump's claim, as well as the fact that no evidence exists to prove the president's conspiracy theory about 50,000 ballots, and all proof showed predictable vote-counting processes in the early morning hours of Jan. 6, we rate this claim 'false.'

In sum, considering Sterling's direct refutation of Trump's claim, as well as the fact that no evidence exists to prove the president's conspiracy theory about 50,000 ballots, and all proof showed predictable vote-counting processes in the early morning hours of Jan. 6, we rate this claim 'false.'

Poll workers in Georgia's Senate runoff election illegally uncovered 50,000 ballots in the early morning hours of Jan. 6, 2021.

Contradiction

Shortly after Democrat Raphael Warnock was announced the winner of one of Georgia's two Senate runoff races on Jan. 6, 2021, putting the Senate majority within the party's reach, U.S. President Donald Trump attempted to cast doubt on the integrity of the election by claiming poll workers mysteriously uncovered 50,000 ballots overnight. He said in a tweet: They just happened to find 50,000 ballots late last night. The USA is embarrassed by fools. Our Election Process is worse than that of third world countries. The post was part of the president's long-spanning misinformation campaign (including the above-displayed tweet) to convince Americans of an illicit, coordinated scheme by Trump's political enemies to undermine him, even though nothing of the sort was taking place. Snopes debunked similar assertions by Trump that secretive late-night vote 'dumps' helped his opponent in the 2020 presidential election, Democrat Joe Biden, win key battleground states. As was the case then, Georgia voters' heavy reliance on mail-in voting instead of in-person polls - to reduce the risk of catching COVID-19 - increased the chances of voting results shifting significantly late at night, as poll workers counted more ballots. That phenomenon was not a result of a conspiracy against Trump, but rather a product of a Georgia law that prohibits poll workers from counting any ballots until after polls close. The Associated Press reported on Jan. 4, the day before the special election: Absentee ballots must be received by the close of polls to be counted. Military and overseas ballots postmarked by Tuesday and received by Friday will be counted, and absentee voters also have until Friday to fix any problems so their votes can be counted. No ballots, including absentee ballots received in advance of Election Day, can be counted until the polls close. [...] In a close contest, look for the Republican candidate to jump out to an early lead. That due to two factors: First, Republican areas of the state usually report their results first. Second, Republican voters have been more likely to vote in person, either on Election Day or during the early voting period. Many counties release those in-person results first. Meanwhile, heavily Democratic counties, including Fulton, DeKalb and Chatham counties, historically take longer to count votes. In regards to the president's assertion regarding a 'dump' of 50,000 ballots to supposedly undermine Republican candidates Sens. Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue, specifically, Snopes found no evidence to support the allegation of voter fraud, and Georgia election officials refuted such claims. 'Election Day for the Georgia Senate runoffs has progressed with few issues and almost nonexistent wait times,' the Georgia Secretary of State said in a news release. Below is our evidence for that conclusion. Just hours after polls closed, some elections officials statewide finished processing and tabulating ballots, and the public learned which candidate received the majority of votes in those counties. Meanwhile, ballot counting in other precincts remained ongoing. The Atlanta Journal Constitution reported at 9:30 p.m.: It's still early, but Republicans are increasingly antsy about their chances. Early returns are showing U.S. Sen. Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue underperforming in important GOP strongholds in rural areas and the exurbs. And turnout in Democratic bastions is nearing November general election levels in some left-leaning rural counties that have already reported most of their results. By 11 p.m., the newspaper said, election workers had tallied more than 300,000 votes, and only a small number of precincts were outstanding. Shortly afterwards, as Atlanta's DeKalb County uploaded its voter tallies, some news outlets, including Vox, declared Warnock the winner. He led Loeffler by about 37,000 votes, with 97% precincts reporting, according to the AJC. 'Of the outstanding votes left to count, many were expected to come in from Democratic strongholds in DeKalb and Fulton counties,' the newspaper reported. At 12:49 a.m., NBC was the first major news network to announce Loeffler had no statistical chance of overcoming Warnock's margin of victory. National news outlets including The Associated Press, CNN, and ABC News quickly followed suit. At 2 a.m. the AJC reported Fulton County election officials were calling it a night and preparing to count the last rounds of ballots in the morning. In all, about 25,000 mail-in ballots remained uncounted across the state, with the bulk in the Atlanta metro area, according to preliminary estimates from the Secretary of State's office. In other words, voting spikes occurred over the course of hours, late at night, for predictable reasons. Counting in multiple Democratic strongholds, as well as several smaller and more conservative-leaning counties, resumed by 6:45 a.m. on Jan. 6, according to the newspaper. Shortly after the president's tweet about poll workers nefariously 'finding' 50,000 ballots, Gabriel Sterling, a Republican who oversees voting systems for the secretary of state's office, highlighted evidence showing typical voter returns based on the state's estimated number of absentee voters. He said in a tweet: No Mr. President, there weren't 'found' ballots. We have known the number of advanced votes since this weekend. We saw record Election Day turnout. As of Monday 970,000 absentees had been accepted. 31k more were added in yesterday's totals. That leaves 60k that came in yesterday. In sum, considering Sterling's direct refutation of Trump's claim, as well as the fact that no evidence exists to prove the president's conspiracy theory about 50,000 ballots, and all proof showed predictable vote-counting processes in the early morning hours of Jan. 6, we rate this claim 'false.'

In sum, considering Sterling's direct refutation of Trump's claim, as well as the fact that no evidence exists to prove the president's conspiracy theory about 50,000 ballots, and all proof showed predictable vote-counting processes in the early morning hours of Jan. 6, we rate this claim 'false.'

Poll workers in Georgia's Senate runoff election illegally uncovered 50,000 ballots in the early morning hours of Jan. 6, 2021.

Contradiction

Shortly after Democrat Raphael Warnock was announced the winner of one of Georgia's two Senate runoff races on Jan. 6, 2021, putting the Senate majority within the party's reach, U.S. President Donald Trump attempted to cast doubt on the integrity of the election by claiming poll workers mysteriously uncovered 50,000 ballots overnight. He said in a tweet: They just happened to find 50,000 ballots late last night. The USA is embarrassed by fools. Our Election Process is worse than that of third world countries. The post was part of the president's long-spanning misinformation campaign (including the above-displayed tweet) to convince Americans of an illicit, coordinated scheme by Trump's political enemies to undermine him, even though nothing of the sort was taking place. Snopes debunked similar assertions by Trump that secretive late-night vote 'dumps' helped his opponent in the 2020 presidential election, Democrat Joe Biden, win key battleground states. As was the case then, Georgia voters' heavy reliance on mail-in voting instead of in-person polls - to reduce the risk of catching COVID-19 - increased the chances of voting results shifting significantly late at night, as poll workers counted more ballots. That phenomenon was not a result of a conspiracy against Trump, but rather a product of a Georgia law that prohibits poll workers from counting any ballots until after polls close. The Associated Press reported on Jan. 4, the day before the special election: Absentee ballots must be received by the close of polls to be counted. Military and overseas ballots postmarked by Tuesday and received by Friday will be counted, and absentee voters also have until Friday to fix any problems so their votes can be counted. No ballots, including absentee ballots received in advance of Election Day, can be counted until the polls close. [...] In a close contest, look for the Republican candidate to jump out to an early lead. That due to two factors: First, Republican areas of the state usually report their results first. Second, Republican voters have been more likely to vote in person, either on Election Day or during the early voting period. Many counties release those in-person results first. Meanwhile, heavily Democratic counties, including Fulton, DeKalb and Chatham counties, historically take longer to count votes. In regards to the president's assertion regarding a 'dump' of 50,000 ballots to supposedly undermine Republican candidates Sens. Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue, specifically, Snopes found no evidence to support the allegation of voter fraud, and Georgia election officials refuted such claims. 'Election Day for the Georgia Senate runoffs has progressed with few issues and almost nonexistent wait times,' the Georgia Secretary of State said in a news release. Below is our evidence for that conclusion. Just hours after polls closed, some elections officials statewide finished processing and tabulating ballots, and the public learned which candidate received the majority of votes in those counties. Meanwhile, ballot counting in other precincts remained ongoing. The Atlanta Journal Constitution reported at 9:30 p.m.: It's still early, but Republicans are increasingly antsy about their chances. Early returns are showing U.S. Sen. Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue underperforming in important GOP strongholds in rural areas and the exurbs. And turnout in Democratic bastions is nearing November general election levels in some left-leaning rural counties that have already reported most of their results. By 11 p.m., the newspaper said, election workers had tallied more than 300,000 votes, and only a small number of precincts were outstanding. Shortly afterwards, as Atlanta's DeKalb County uploaded its voter tallies, some news outlets, including Vox, declared Warnock the winner. He led Loeffler by about 37,000 votes, with 97% precincts reporting, according to the AJC. 'Of the outstanding votes left to count, many were expected to come in from Democratic strongholds in DeKalb and Fulton counties,' the newspaper reported. At 12:49 a.m., NBC was the first major news network to announce Loeffler had no statistical chance of overcoming Warnock's margin of victory. National news outlets including The Associated Press, CNN, and ABC News quickly followed suit. At 2 a.m. the AJC reported Fulton County election officials were calling it a night and preparing to count the last rounds of ballots in the morning. In all, about 25,000 mail-in ballots remained uncounted across the state, with the bulk in the Atlanta metro area, according to preliminary estimates from the Secretary of State's office. In other words, voting spikes occurred over the course of hours, late at night, for predictable reasons. Counting in multiple Democratic strongholds, as well as several smaller and more conservative-leaning counties, resumed by 6:45 a.m. on Jan. 6, according to the newspaper. Shortly after the president's tweet about poll workers nefariously 'finding' 50,000 ballots, Gabriel Sterling, a Republican who oversees voting systems for the secretary of state's office, highlighted evidence showing typical voter returns based on the state's estimated number of absentee voters. He said in a tweet: No Mr. President, there weren't 'found' ballots. We have known the number of advanced votes since this weekend. We saw record Election Day turnout. As of Monday 970,000 absentees had been accepted. 31k more were added in yesterday's totals. That leaves 60k that came in yesterday. In sum, considering Sterling's direct refutation of Trump's claim, as well as the fact that no evidence exists to prove the president's conspiracy theory about 50,000 ballots, and all proof showed predictable vote-counting processes in the early morning hours of Jan. 6, we rate this claim 'false.'

In sum, considering Sterling's direct refutation of Trump's claim, as well as the fact that no evidence exists to prove the president's conspiracy theory about 50,000 ballots, and all proof showed predictable vote-counting processes in the early morning hours of Jan. 6, we rate this claim 'false.'

Poll workers in Georgia's Senate runoff election illegally uncovered 50,000 ballots in the early morning hours of Jan. 6, 2021.

Contradiction

Shortly after Democrat Raphael Warnock was announced the winner of one of Georgia's two Senate runoff races on Jan. 6, 2021, putting the Senate majority within the party's reach, U.S. President Donald Trump attempted to cast doubt on the integrity of the election by claiming poll workers mysteriously uncovered 50,000 ballots overnight. He said in a tweet: They just happened to find 50,000 ballots late last night. The USA is embarrassed by fools. Our Election Process is worse than that of third world countries. The post was part of the president's long-spanning misinformation campaign (including the above-displayed tweet) to convince Americans of an illicit, coordinated scheme by Trump's political enemies to undermine him, even though nothing of the sort was taking place. Snopes debunked similar assertions by Trump that secretive late-night vote 'dumps' helped his opponent in the 2020 presidential election, Democrat Joe Biden, win key battleground states. As was the case then, Georgia voters' heavy reliance on mail-in voting instead of in-person polls - to reduce the risk of catching COVID-19 - increased the chances of voting results shifting significantly late at night, as poll workers counted more ballots. That phenomenon was not a result of a conspiracy against Trump, but rather a product of a Georgia law that prohibits poll workers from counting any ballots until after polls close. The Associated Press reported on Jan. 4, the day before the special election: Absentee ballots must be received by the close of polls to be counted. Military and overseas ballots postmarked by Tuesday and received by Friday will be counted, and absentee voters also have until Friday to fix any problems so their votes can be counted. No ballots, including absentee ballots received in advance of Election Day, can be counted until the polls close. [...] In a close contest, look for the Republican candidate to jump out to an early lead. That due to two factors: First, Republican areas of the state usually report their results first. Second, Republican voters have been more likely to vote in person, either on Election Day or during the early voting period. Many counties release those in-person results first. Meanwhile, heavily Democratic counties, including Fulton, DeKalb and Chatham counties, historically take longer to count votes. In regards to the president's assertion regarding a 'dump' of 50,000 ballots to supposedly undermine Republican candidates Sens. Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue, specifically, Snopes found no evidence to support the allegation of voter fraud, and Georgia election officials refuted such claims. 'Election Day for the Georgia Senate runoffs has progressed with few issues and almost nonexistent wait times,' the Georgia Secretary of State said in a news release. Below is our evidence for that conclusion. Just hours after polls closed, some elections officials statewide finished processing and tabulating ballots, and the public learned which candidate received the majority of votes in those counties. Meanwhile, ballot counting in other precincts remained ongoing. The Atlanta Journal Constitution reported at 9:30 p.m.: It's still early, but Republicans are increasingly antsy about their chances. Early returns are showing U.S. Sen. Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue underperforming in important GOP strongholds in rural areas and the exurbs. And turnout in Democratic bastions is nearing November general election levels in some left-leaning rural counties that have already reported most of their results. By 11 p.m., the newspaper said, election workers had tallied more than 300,000 votes, and only a small number of precincts were outstanding. Shortly afterwards, as Atlanta's DeKalb County uploaded its voter tallies, some news outlets, including Vox, declared Warnock the winner. He led Loeffler by about 37,000 votes, with 97% precincts reporting, according to the AJC. 'Of the outstanding votes left to count, many were expected to come in from Democratic strongholds in DeKalb and Fulton counties,' the newspaper reported. At 12:49 a.m., NBC was the first major news network to announce Loeffler had no statistical chance of overcoming Warnock's margin of victory. National news outlets including The Associated Press, CNN, and ABC News quickly followed suit. At 2 a.m. the AJC reported Fulton County election officials were calling it a night and preparing to count the last rounds of ballots in the morning. In all, about 25,000 mail-in ballots remained uncounted across the state, with the bulk in the Atlanta metro area, according to preliminary estimates from the Secretary of State's office. In other words, voting spikes occurred over the course of hours, late at night, for predictable reasons. Counting in multiple Democratic strongholds, as well as several smaller and more conservative-leaning counties, resumed by 6:45 a.m. on Jan. 6, according to the newspaper. Shortly after the president's tweet about poll workers nefariously 'finding' 50,000 ballots, Gabriel Sterling, a Republican who oversees voting systems for the secretary of state's office, highlighted evidence showing typical voter returns based on the state's estimated number of absentee voters. He said in a tweet: No Mr. President, there weren't 'found' ballots. We have known the number of advanced votes since this weekend. We saw record Election Day turnout. As of Monday 970,000 absentees had been accepted. 31k more were added in yesterday's totals. That leaves 60k that came in yesterday. In sum, considering Sterling's direct refutation of Trump's claim, as well as the fact that no evidence exists to prove the president's conspiracy theory about 50,000 ballots, and all proof showed predictable vote-counting processes in the early morning hours of Jan. 6, we rate this claim 'false.'

In sum, considering Sterling's direct refutation of Trump's claim, as well as the fact that no evidence exists to prove the president's conspiracy theory about 50,000 ballots, and all proof showed predictable vote-counting processes in the early morning hours of Jan. 6, we rate this claim 'false.'

A concerted effort exists to normalize 'age fluidity' to allow pedophiles to legally engage in physical relationships with children.

Contradiction

In July 2020, an old and debunked rumor claiming that pedophiles were attempting to normalize 'age fluidity,' an invented term for a fictional medical condition in which a person self-identifies as a younger age in order to engage in physical relationships with children, was recirculated on social media. This rumor was often shared in the form of a text post. Here's an excerpt from one popular iteration: While we are arguing over the efficacy of masks, a vile group of people are trying to make pedophilia a sexual orientation and believe it is 100% ok to be age fluid. I just discovered age fluidity last night. Being age fluid means that a full grown man could 'identify' as an 8 year old boy...OR an 8 year old girl if he is also feeling gender fluid on any particular day. So, if a 50 year old man 'identifies' as an 8 year old girl, and is attracted to an 8 year old boy, then these sickos feel it is natural and should be legal for him to act on those feelings. This is inaccurate. No concerted effort exists to normalize 'age fluidity' as a way for adults to engage in sexual relationships with children. This is transphobic hoax that was created in an attempt to smear the LGBTQ community by linking them to pedophilia. This smear is not a novel one. In fact, there have been repeated attempts to spread the long-disproven idea that homosexuality is linked to pedophilia, despite the lack of scientific proof to support this claim. In 2017, for example, a false rumor was circulated on social media claiming that the LGBTQ community was working to change their acronym to 'LGBTQP,' with the 'P' standing for 'pedosexual.' In 2018, a troll Tumblr page created and spread a pride flag for 'MAPS,' a term meaning 'Minor Attracted Persons,' and falsely claimed that the group was earning currency with the LGBTQ community. The above-displayed meme, which was created from a stock image of a 'father talking with son silhouette' (the white outline of a little girl was not present in the original image), started circulating on social media circa early 2017. At the time, a troll campaign was underway by bad actors who were falsely claiming to be 'clovergendered,' an imaginary medical term that supposedly referred to a person whose mind stopped developing at a young age. These 'clovergendered' people were now adults, but since their minds stopped developing at a young age, they claimed it was acceptable for them to be attracted to minors. One 4chan thread from Dec. 31, 2016, informed social media users that they were creating a 'new gender' to troll 'social justice warriors' and defined 'clovergender' as 'a child trapped in a man's body who is attracted to other children.' The Twitter account @clovergender, which has since been suspended, was one of the first to start sharing the 'Age Fluid' meme shown above. This meme was created as part of a troll campaign that aimed, in part, to spread the repeatedly debunked notion that a link exists between the LGBTQ community and pedophilia. Live Science addressed this persistent myth about homosexuals in a 2011 article, writing: An especially pernicious myth is that most adults who sexually abuse children are gay. A number of researchers have looked at this question to determine if homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles than heterosexuals, and the data indicate that's not the case. For example, in a 1989 study led by Kurt Freund of the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry in Canada, scientists showed pictures of children to adult gay and straight males, and measured sexual arousal. Homosexual men reacted no more strongly to pictures of male children than heterosexual men reacted to pictures of female children. A 1994 study, led by Carole Jenny of the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, surveyed 269 cases of children who were sexually molested by adults. In 82 percent of cases, the alleged offender was a heterosexual partner of a close relative of the child, the researchers reported in the journal Pediatrics. In only two out of 269 cases, the offender was identified as being gay or lesbian. In short, no concerted effort exists by any group to normalize 'age fluidity' in order to legally engage in sexual relationships with children. This is a transphobic piece of anti-LGBTQ propaganda that originated in 2017.

In short, no concerted effort exists by any group to normalize 'age fluidity' in order to legally engage in sexual relationships with children. This is a transphobic piece of anti-LGBTQ propaganda that originated in 2017.

A concerted effort exists to normalize 'age fluidity' to allow pedophiles to legally engage in physical relationships with children.

Contradiction

In July 2020, an old and debunked rumor claiming that pedophiles were attempting to normalize 'age fluidity,' an invented term for a fictional medical condition in which a person self-identifies as a younger age in order to engage in physical relationships with children, was recirculated on social media. This rumor was often shared in the form of a text post. Here's an excerpt from one popular iteration: While we are arguing over the efficacy of masks, a vile group of people are trying to make pedophilia a sexual orientation and believe it is 100% ok to be age fluid. I just discovered age fluidity last night. Being age fluid means that a full grown man could 'identify' as an 8 year old boy...OR an 8 year old girl if he is also feeling gender fluid on any particular day. So, if a 50 year old man 'identifies' as an 8 year old girl, and is attracted to an 8 year old boy, then these sickos feel it is natural and should be legal for him to act on those feelings. This is inaccurate. No concerted effort exists to normalize 'age fluidity' as a way for adults to engage in sexual relationships with children. This is transphobic hoax that was created in an attempt to smear the LGBTQ community by linking them to pedophilia. This smear is not a novel one. In fact, there have been repeated attempts to spread the long-disproven idea that homosexuality is linked to pedophilia, despite the lack of scientific proof to support this claim. In 2017, for example, a false rumor was circulated on social media claiming that the LGBTQ community was working to change their acronym to 'LGBTQP,' with the 'P' standing for 'pedosexual.' In 2018, a troll Tumblr page created and spread a pride flag for 'MAPS,' a term meaning 'Minor Attracted Persons,' and falsely claimed that the group was earning currency with the LGBTQ community. The above-displayed meme, which was created from a stock image of a 'father talking with son silhouette' (the white outline of a little girl was not present in the original image), started circulating on social media circa early 2017. At the time, a troll campaign was underway by bad actors who were falsely claiming to be 'clovergendered,' an imaginary medical term that supposedly referred to a person whose mind stopped developing at a young age. These 'clovergendered' people were now adults, but since their minds stopped developing at a young age, they claimed it was acceptable for them to be attracted to minors. One 4chan thread from Dec. 31, 2016, informed social media users that they were creating a 'new gender' to troll 'social justice warriors' and defined 'clovergender' as 'a child trapped in a man's body who is attracted to other children.' The Twitter account @clovergender, which has since been suspended, was one of the first to start sharing the 'Age Fluid' meme shown above. This meme was created as part of a troll campaign that aimed, in part, to spread the repeatedly debunked notion that a link exists between the LGBTQ community and pedophilia. Live Science addressed this persistent myth about homosexuals in a 2011 article, writing: An especially pernicious myth is that most adults who sexually abuse children are gay. A number of researchers have looked at this question to determine if homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles than heterosexuals, and the data indicate that's not the case. For example, in a 1989 study led by Kurt Freund of the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry in Canada, scientists showed pictures of children to adult gay and straight males, and measured sexual arousal. Homosexual men reacted no more strongly to pictures of male children than heterosexual men reacted to pictures of female children. A 1994 study, led by Carole Jenny of the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, surveyed 269 cases of children who were sexually molested by adults. In 82 percent of cases, the alleged offender was a heterosexual partner of a close relative of the child, the researchers reported in the journal Pediatrics. In only two out of 269 cases, the offender was identified as being gay or lesbian. In short, no concerted effort exists by any group to normalize 'age fluidity' in order to legally engage in sexual relationships with children. This is a transphobic piece of anti-LGBTQ propaganda that originated in 2017.

In short, no concerted effort exists by any group to normalize 'age fluidity' in order to legally engage in sexual relationships with children. This is a transphobic piece of anti-LGBTQ propaganda that originated in 2017.

Internet and cell service for people protesting police brutality in Washington, D.C., turned off for a temporary 'blackout' on June 1.

Contradiction

Rumors are surging in the wake of George Floyd's death and resulting protests against police violence and racial injustice in the United States. Stay informed. Read our special coverage, contribute to support our mission, and submit any tips or claims you see here. On June 1, 2020, during overnight protests against racism and police brutality in dozens of U.S. cities, Twitter became ground zero for this rumor that quickly rose to the top of the platform's trending topics: that authorities had blocked internet and cellphone service in Washington, D.C., as part of an allegedly nefarious scheme to control what protesters were doing. The hashtag #dcblackout had almost a half-million tweets within a few hours, following a night of chaotic protests in American cities triggered by the death of George Floyd, a black man who was pinned to the ground by a white Minneapolis police officer on May 25, 2020, while he pleaded, 'I can't breathe.' The posts, which also came under question on Reddit, claimed an unknown entity had somehow temporarily blocked hundreds of protesters from communicating with their cellphones in order for law-enforcement to crack down on fires and property damage near the White House and hide the destruction from public view. The tweets included alarming text, some of which accurately pointed out that Secret Service agents had escorted U.S. President Donald Trump to an underground bunker for his safety during the protests. Others included photos or unedited videos of clashes between police officers and protesters, though it was not exactly clear from what city the media was recorded. Here's how the misinformation campaign began: According to BBC misinformation specialists, the idea of a network blackout in Washington, D.C., during the protests seemingly first appeared on a Facebook group titled Trump 2020, which had tens of thousands of subscribers and had later deleted the below-displayed post. Then, 30 minutes later, the hashtag appeared to have surfaced on Twitter from an account that, as of this writing, has five followers (including this Snopes reporter). The tweet read: After that, a second account tweeted what's below, and numerous accounts wrote posts with similar claims and included the #dcblackout hashtag. Within a few hours, the claim had spread across tens of thousands of feeds and people nationwide were chiming in on the alleged controversy. No evidence suggests that accounts with the highest engagement were based in the D.C. area, according to Shayan Sardarizadeh of the BBC. However, no evidence suggests that a blackout occurred. According to NetBlocks.org, an organization that tracks internet disruptions and shutdowns globally, there was 'no indication of a mass-scale internet disruption' on May 31, 2020, or on the morning of June 1, 2020. Additionally, news reporters who were covering the protests reported uninterrupted service during the hours in question, between roughly 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. EST. D.C. Police Chief Peter Newsham, who did not respond to Snopes' request for comment, told reporters on June 1, 2020, according to the Washington Post: 'There was no communications loss that I saw in any shape or form.' Then, as those refutes surfaced online, a second wave of posts began circulating in what appeared to be a part of a coordinated network to challenge the truth behind the original rumor, yet through a spam message: Darius Kazemi, a former fellow at the Mozilla Foundation and social media and bots researcher, told Mother Jones that while he was still in the process of investigating the situation, both accounts that spread the #dcblackout and refuted the claim were engaged in what appeared to be one massive, coordinated effort. He elaborated on Twitter: 'Whether it's bots (meaning automated software) or trolls (individuals or groups of individuals organizing to create chaos), I can't tell because the situation is rapidly evolving. ...Also it's very hard to tell what 'side' these accounts are on, as floating around I've seen claims, counterclaims, counter-counterclaims, and even counter-counter-counterclaims.' He said some accounts involved could have been hacked because they either quickly deleted the copy-paste spam posts or authored follow-up messages saying that they didn't mean to write about the alleged blackout. Asked about the misinformation campaign, Brandon Borrman, a spokesman for Twitter, told the Post: 'We're taking action proactively on any coordinated attempts to disrupt the public conversation around this issue,' he said. 'We are actively investigating the hashtag #dcblackout and during that process have already suspended hundreds of spammy accounts that Tweeted using the hashtag.' Additionally, when we asked the district's Homeland Security and Emergency Management Agency confirmed about the rumor, Director Christopher Rodriguez said in emailed statement the agency had identified 'some instances' of a disinformation campaign, and his office has passed evidence to the local police department and federal authorities, including the F.B.I and U.S. Department of Homeland Security, for further investigation. In sum, given no evidence exists of an internet or cell service blackout in Washington, D.C., during the in-question time period, as well as protest organizers and city authorities refuting the claim and analysis by misinformation experts that had dubbed the rumor part of a coordinated communications effort, we rate this claim 'False.'

In sum, given no evidence exists of an internet or cell service blackout in Washington, D.C., during the in-question time period, as well as protest organizers and city authorities refuting the claim and analysis by misinformation experts that had dubbed the rumor part of a coordinated communications effort, we rate this claim 'False.'

Scientists have created 'kaleabis,' a cross of kale and marijuana.

Contradiction

In April 2016, the web site High Times published an article reporting that scientists had successfully crossbred marijuana and kale: A Brooklyn-based lab has successfully bred the world's first Kale x Cannabis hybrid. The company, Williamsburg Wonders, announced today that the new cross, called Kaleabis, would be available as a superfood juice shot in Oregon dispensaries this summer. Readers who encountered the above-quoted article either didn't notice the publish date (1 April 2016) or didn't follow the link included at the bottom of the article. While High Times didn't specifically state that the article was an April Fool's Day joke on their web site, they did link to the following image: While dozens of web sites published their own April Fool's Day joke articles in 2016, many readers didn't encounter them until weeks after the infamous date, making it a little harder to determine whether the articles were jokes.

In April 2016, the web site High Times published an article reporting that scientists had successfully crossbred marijuana and kale: A Brooklyn-based lab has successfully bred the world's first Kale x Cannabis hybrid. The company, Williamsburg Wonders, announced today that the new cross, called Kaleabis, would be available as a superfood juice shot in Oregon dispensaries this summer. Readers who encountered the above-quoted article either didn't notice the publish date (1 April 2016) or didn't follow the link included at the bottom of the article. While High Times didn't specifically state that the article was an April Fool's Day joke on their web site, they did link to the following image: While dozens of web sites published their own April Fool's Day joke articles in 2016, many readers didn't encounter them until weeks after the infamous date, making it a little harder to determine whether the articles were jokes.

A photograph shows a 6-year-old child working as a coal miner.

Contradiction

It's no surprise to students of history that throughout the American Industrial Revolution of the 19th century, and up until the passage of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) of 1938, many children in the United States were allowed - or compelled - to spend long hours toiling at physically demanding, hazardous, and unhealthful jobs for marginal wages. As one history of The American Era of Child Labor described those circumstances: American children worked in large numbers in mines, glass factories, textiles, agriculture, canneries, home industries, and as newsboys, messengers, bootblacks, and peddlers. The lucky ones swept the trash and filth from city streets or stood for hours on street corners hawking newspapers. The less fortunate coughed constantly through 10-hour shifts in dark, damp coal mines or sweated to the point of dehydration while tending fiery glass-factory furnaces ... By and large, these child laborers were the sons and daughters of poor parents or recent immigrants who depended on their children's meager wages to survive ... By 1911, more than two million American children under the age of 16 were working - many of them 12 hours or more, six days a week. Often they toiled in unhealthful and hazardous conditions; always for minuscule wages. Young girls continued to work in mills, still in danger of slipping and losing a finger or a foot while standing on top of machines to change bobbins; or of being scalped if their hair got caught. And, as ever, after a day of bending over to pick bits of rock from coal, breaker boys were still stiff and in pain. If a breaker boy fell, he could still be smothered, or crushed, by huge piles of coal. And, when he turned 12, he would still be forced to go down into the mines and face the threat of cave-ins and explosions. A meme commonly seen on social media attempts to vividly demonstrate the realities of the child labor era by displaying a photograph of a very young child (variously described as being 6 or 8 years old) who was supposedly working as a coal miner in the early 20th century: Although this photograph might reflect some realities of the child labor era, it does not literally depict a very young coal miner. The child seen here looks too young to have been working in a coal mine at all. But even if he were, boys that young were not put to work actually mining coal, a job too physically demanding for such small children. Rather, they would be assigned other tasks, most commonly serving as 'breaker boys' who spent their days at the labor-intensive tasks of separating slate and other impurities from coal by hand: For 10 hours a day, six days a week, breaker boys would sit on wooden seats, perched over the chutes and conveyor belts, picking slate and other impurities out of the coal. Breaker boys working on top of chutes or conveyor belts would stop the coal by pushing their boots into the stream of fuel flowing beneath them, briefly pick out the impurities, and then let the coal pass on to the next breaker boy for further processing. Others would divert coal into a horizontal chute at which they sat, then pick the coal clean before allowing the fuel to flow into 'clean' coal bins. The work performed by breaker boys was hazardous. Breaker boys were forced to work without gloves so that they could better handle the slick coal. The slate, however, was sharp, and breaker boys would often leave work with their fingers cut and bleeding. Breaker boys sometimes also had their fingers amputated by the rapidly moving conveyor belts. Others lost feet, hands, arms, and legs as they moved among the machinery and became caught under conveyor belts or in gears. Many were crushed to death, their bodies retrieved from the gears of the machinery by supervisors only at the end of the working day. Others were caught in the rush of coal, and crushed to death or smothered. Dry coal would kick up so much dust that breaker boys sometimes wore lamps on their heads to see, and asthma and black lung disease were common. Coal was often washed to remove impurities, which created sulfuric acid. The acid burned the hands of the breaker boys. The original photograph looks to be merely a posed picture of a young boy dressed up with some props - he's gripping a tool (a pickaxe) far too large for him to wield, sporting a luxury he couldn't afford (a pipe), and standing in what looks far more like a photo studio than anything remotely resembling the environs of a coal mine: Indeed, the Western Mining and Railroad Museum in Helper, Utah, where this photograph is displayed, confirmed to us that the picture was taken in a nearby studio and does not depict a child coal miner: According to what we have, [this picture] was taken in a studio in Castle Gate, just outside of Helper, Utah. This is our most commented-on photograph in the museum, [and] it is interesting to see the wide range of reactions [it elicits], from amused to horrified. When visitors ask, I tell them this boy was not actually working in the mines, that [the photograph was] made in a studio. I tell them children did not work [as miners], although there is some reality to it, as the kids did go to work with their fathers [at the mines] at a young - although not that young - age. We have a display about what children did at the mines and child labor laws that I direct [visitors] to. In sum, children did account for much of the labor force in mines in the 19th and early 20th centuries, with boys as young as 8 put to work in the country's many coal mines under grueling and dangerous conditions. But although the photograph seen above is from that era and reflective of its characteristics in a broad sense, it's merely a 'cute' staged picture of a little boy dressed up with props and not a genuine snapshot of a child coal miner.

In sum, children did account for much of the labor force in mines in the 19th and early 20th centuries, with boys as young as 8 put to work in the country's many coal mines under grueling and dangerous conditions. But although the photograph seen above is from that era and reflective of its characteristics in a broad sense, it's merely a 'cute' staged picture of a little boy dressed up with props and not a genuine snapshot of a child coal miner.

A photograph shows a 6-year-old child working as a coal miner.

Contradiction

It's no surprise to students of history that throughout the American Industrial Revolution of the 19th century, and up until the passage of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) of 1938, many children in the United States were allowed - or compelled - to spend long hours toiling at physically demanding, hazardous, and unhealthful jobs for marginal wages. As one history of The American Era of Child Labor described those circumstances: American children worked in large numbers in mines, glass factories, textiles, agriculture, canneries, home industries, and as newsboys, messengers, bootblacks, and peddlers. The lucky ones swept the trash and filth from city streets or stood for hours on street corners hawking newspapers. The less fortunate coughed constantly through 10-hour shifts in dark, damp coal mines or sweated to the point of dehydration while tending fiery glass-factory furnaces ... By and large, these child laborers were the sons and daughters of poor parents or recent immigrants who depended on their children's meager wages to survive ... By 1911, more than two million American children under the age of 16 were working - many of them 12 hours or more, six days a week. Often they toiled in unhealthful and hazardous conditions; always for minuscule wages. Young girls continued to work in mills, still in danger of slipping and losing a finger or a foot while standing on top of machines to change bobbins; or of being scalped if their hair got caught. And, as ever, after a day of bending over to pick bits of rock from coal, breaker boys were still stiff and in pain. If a breaker boy fell, he could still be smothered, or crushed, by huge piles of coal. And, when he turned 12, he would still be forced to go down into the mines and face the threat of cave-ins and explosions. A meme commonly seen on social media attempts to vividly demonstrate the realities of the child labor era by displaying a photograph of a very young child (variously described as being 6 or 8 years old) who was supposedly working as a coal miner in the early 20th century: Although this photograph might reflect some realities of the child labor era, it does not literally depict a very young coal miner. The child seen here looks too young to have been working in a coal mine at all. But even if he were, boys that young were not put to work actually mining coal, a job too physically demanding for such small children. Rather, they would be assigned other tasks, most commonly serving as 'breaker boys' who spent their days at the labor-intensive tasks of separating slate and other impurities from coal by hand: For 10 hours a day, six days a week, breaker boys would sit on wooden seats, perched over the chutes and conveyor belts, picking slate and other impurities out of the coal. Breaker boys working on top of chutes or conveyor belts would stop the coal by pushing their boots into the stream of fuel flowing beneath them, briefly pick out the impurities, and then let the coal pass on to the next breaker boy for further processing. Others would divert coal into a horizontal chute at which they sat, then pick the coal clean before allowing the fuel to flow into 'clean' coal bins. The work performed by breaker boys was hazardous. Breaker boys were forced to work without gloves so that they could better handle the slick coal. The slate, however, was sharp, and breaker boys would often leave work with their fingers cut and bleeding. Breaker boys sometimes also had their fingers amputated by the rapidly moving conveyor belts. Others lost feet, hands, arms, and legs as they moved among the machinery and became caught under conveyor belts or in gears. Many were crushed to death, their bodies retrieved from the gears of the machinery by supervisors only at the end of the working day. Others were caught in the rush of coal, and crushed to death or smothered. Dry coal would kick up so much dust that breaker boys sometimes wore lamps on their heads to see, and asthma and black lung disease were common. Coal was often washed to remove impurities, which created sulfuric acid. The acid burned the hands of the breaker boys. The original photograph looks to be merely a posed picture of a young boy dressed up with some props - he's gripping a tool (a pickaxe) far too large for him to wield, sporting a luxury he couldn't afford (a pipe), and standing in what looks far more like a photo studio than anything remotely resembling the environs of a coal mine: Indeed, the Western Mining and Railroad Museum in Helper, Utah, where this photograph is displayed, confirmed to us that the picture was taken in a nearby studio and does not depict a child coal miner: According to what we have, [this picture] was taken in a studio in Castle Gate, just outside of Helper, Utah. This is our most commented-on photograph in the museum, [and] it is interesting to see the wide range of reactions [it elicits], from amused to horrified. When visitors ask, I tell them this boy was not actually working in the mines, that [the photograph was] made in a studio. I tell them children did not work [as miners], although there is some reality to it, as the kids did go to work with their fathers [at the mines] at a young - although not that young - age. We have a display about what children did at the mines and child labor laws that I direct [visitors] to. In sum, children did account for much of the labor force in mines in the 19th and early 20th centuries, with boys as young as 8 put to work in the country's many coal mines under grueling and dangerous conditions. But although the photograph seen above is from that era and reflective of its characteristics in a broad sense, it's merely a 'cute' staged picture of a little boy dressed up with props and not a genuine snapshot of a child coal miner.

In sum, children did account for much of the labor force in mines in the 19th and early 20th centuries, with boys as young as 8 put to work in the country's many coal mines under grueling and dangerous conditions. But although the photograph seen above is from that era and reflective of its characteristics in a broad sense, it's merely a 'cute' staged picture of a little boy dressed up with props and not a genuine snapshot of a child coal miner.

A photograph shows a 6-year-old child working as a coal miner.

Contradiction

It's no surprise to students of history that throughout the American Industrial Revolution of the 19th century, and up until the passage of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) of 1938, many children in the United States were allowed - or compelled - to spend long hours toiling at physically demanding, hazardous, and unhealthful jobs for marginal wages. As one history of The American Era of Child Labor described those circumstances: American children worked in large numbers in mines, glass factories, textiles, agriculture, canneries, home industries, and as newsboys, messengers, bootblacks, and peddlers. The lucky ones swept the trash and filth from city streets or stood for hours on street corners hawking newspapers. The less fortunate coughed constantly through 10-hour shifts in dark, damp coal mines or sweated to the point of dehydration while tending fiery glass-factory furnaces ... By and large, these child laborers were the sons and daughters of poor parents or recent immigrants who depended on their children's meager wages to survive ... By 1911, more than two million American children under the age of 16 were working - many of them 12 hours or more, six days a week. Often they toiled in unhealthful and hazardous conditions; always for minuscule wages. Young girls continued to work in mills, still in danger of slipping and losing a finger or a foot while standing on top of machines to change bobbins; or of being scalped if their hair got caught. And, as ever, after a day of bending over to pick bits of rock from coal, breaker boys were still stiff and in pain. If a breaker boy fell, he could still be smothered, or crushed, by huge piles of coal. And, when he turned 12, he would still be forced to go down into the mines and face the threat of cave-ins and explosions. A meme commonly seen on social media attempts to vividly demonstrate the realities of the child labor era by displaying a photograph of a very young child (variously described as being 6 or 8 years old) who was supposedly working as a coal miner in the early 20th century: Although this photograph might reflect some realities of the child labor era, it does not literally depict a very young coal miner. The child seen here looks too young to have been working in a coal mine at all. But even if he were, boys that young were not put to work actually mining coal, a job too physically demanding for such small children. Rather, they would be assigned other tasks, most commonly serving as 'breaker boys' who spent their days at the labor-intensive tasks of separating slate and other impurities from coal by hand: For 10 hours a day, six days a week, breaker boys would sit on wooden seats, perched over the chutes and conveyor belts, picking slate and other impurities out of the coal. Breaker boys working on top of chutes or conveyor belts would stop the coal by pushing their boots into the stream of fuel flowing beneath them, briefly pick out the impurities, and then let the coal pass on to the next breaker boy for further processing. Others would divert coal into a horizontal chute at which they sat, then pick the coal clean before allowing the fuel to flow into 'clean' coal bins. The work performed by breaker boys was hazardous. Breaker boys were forced to work without gloves so that they could better handle the slick coal. The slate, however, was sharp, and breaker boys would often leave work with their fingers cut and bleeding. Breaker boys sometimes also had their fingers amputated by the rapidly moving conveyor belts. Others lost feet, hands, arms, and legs as they moved among the machinery and became caught under conveyor belts or in gears. Many were crushed to death, their bodies retrieved from the gears of the machinery by supervisors only at the end of the working day. Others were caught in the rush of coal, and crushed to death or smothered. Dry coal would kick up so much dust that breaker boys sometimes wore lamps on their heads to see, and asthma and black lung disease were common. Coal was often washed to remove impurities, which created sulfuric acid. The acid burned the hands of the breaker boys. The original photograph looks to be merely a posed picture of a young boy dressed up with some props - he's gripping a tool (a pickaxe) far too large for him to wield, sporting a luxury he couldn't afford (a pipe), and standing in what looks far more like a photo studio than anything remotely resembling the environs of a coal mine: Indeed, the Western Mining and Railroad Museum in Helper, Utah, where this photograph is displayed, confirmed to us that the picture was taken in a nearby studio and does not depict a child coal miner: According to what we have, [this picture] was taken in a studio in Castle Gate, just outside of Helper, Utah. This is our most commented-on photograph in the museum, [and] it is interesting to see the wide range of reactions [it elicits], from amused to horrified. When visitors ask, I tell them this boy was not actually working in the mines, that [the photograph was] made in a studio. I tell them children did not work [as miners], although there is some reality to it, as the kids did go to work with their fathers [at the mines] at a young - although not that young - age. We have a display about what children did at the mines and child labor laws that I direct [visitors] to. In sum, children did account for much of the labor force in mines in the 19th and early 20th centuries, with boys as young as 8 put to work in the country's many coal mines under grueling and dangerous conditions. But although the photograph seen above is from that era and reflective of its characteristics in a broad sense, it's merely a 'cute' staged picture of a little boy dressed up with props and not a genuine snapshot of a child coal miner.

In sum, children did account for much of the labor force in mines in the 19th and early 20th centuries, with boys as young as 8 put to work in the country's many coal mines under grueling and dangerous conditions. But although the photograph seen above is from that era and reflective of its characteristics in a broad sense, it's merely a 'cute' staged picture of a little boy dressed up with props and not a genuine snapshot of a child coal miner.

In August 2018, French politicians passed a law which stated that a child is capable of consenting to having sex with an adult.

Contradiction

France's somewhat complicated laws involving sexual abuse and violence came under scrutiny in 2018, when the government of President Emmanuel Macron drafted proposals to enhance protections for children against sexual assault. The 'Loi Schiappa,' named after Marlène Schiappa, the country's Minister for Equality, was dogged by controversy and opposition throughout its passage into law, with some activists accusing the legislation of being a 'missed opportunity' to beef up protections for children by establishing a minimum age of sexual consent. In August 2018, Your News Wire, a disreputable web site known for peddling conspiracy theories and junk news as well as distorting and sensationalizing real events, took aim at the new laws in a misleading article bearing the headline 'France Passes Law Saying Children Can Consent to Sex with Adults': President Macron's government has voted against having an age of consent in France, becoming the latest nation to give in to pressure from an international network of liberal activists determined to normalize pedophilia and decriminalize sex with children across the world. Federal law in France now has no legal age of consent, meaning adults who have sex with children of any age will not be prosecuted for rape if the child victim is unable to prove 'violence, threat, duress, or surprise.' The draft bill against sexual and gender-based violence, known as the Schiappa law, was signed into law by the French Parliament on 3 August, sparking outrage in France as parents and children's rights groups accuse Emmanuel Macron's government of betraying the nation's children. The Your News Wire article accurately presented some elements of the issue but was misleading in other important ways, wrongly suggesting that the legislation had repealed an existing age of consent, stating that 'Federal law in France now has no legal age of consent,' and proclaiming 'France passes law saying children can consent to sex with adults.' The law did not say any of that (although it is true that the law did not introduce, for what would have been the first time, a clearly-defined legal minimum age of sexual consent in France). The Your News Wire article also failed to note that the law strengthened and enhanced existing laws against the rape and sexual assault of children, and it contained measures that would give judges more leeway in prosecuting adults who have sex with children. Your News Wire's article was the subject of controversy in New Zealand, where the conservative National Party M.P. Judith Collins tweeted it out on 5 August 2018, challenging Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern to denounce the French legislation: Is @jacindaardern willing to denounce this legislation of child sexual abuse? https://t.co/6YMlJiO8zr - Judith Collins (@JudithCollinsMP) August 6, 2018 Collins was criticized for citing a 'fake news article' from Your News Wire, and Ardern took a question about Collins' tweet during a press conference on 6 August, though she declined to comment, saying 'I have not looked in any detail at what she has asked, or what sits behind it.' Existing Law There is no age of sexual consent in France. A familiar legal concept in most Western countries, the age of consent is based on the principle that below a certain age, children are by definition not capable of granting informed consent to sexual activity (no matter how intelligent or educated or experienced they may be). With an age of consent in place, any adult's engaging in any sexual activity with a child under a certain age is, by default, rape. In the United States and other countries this crime is often referred to as 'statutory rape,' but that crime doesn't exist in France. However, France does have other laws in place that protect children by criminalizing sexual abuse, something the Your News Wire article failed to explain. Article 227-25 of France's penal code outlaws 'sexual infraction on the person of a child aged under 15' ('atteinte sexuelle') and (up until August 2018) imposed a penalty of five years' imprisonment and a €75,000 ($86,720) fine for violations of that code. The fine and prison sentence were doubled under certain aggravating circumstances, such as when the attacker was an older family member or was abusing a position of authority, or when the sexual infraction came about due to online messaging (i.e., 'grooming'). Under Article 222-24 of France's penal code, rape of a child aged under 15 is considered an aggravated rape and is punishable by 20 years in prison. Under Article 222-22, rape is defined as 'a sexual assault committed with violence, coercion, threat or surprise.' Also important to consider is that a 2010 law specified that coercion 'can be physical or moral,' adding: 'Moral coercion can result from the age difference between an underage victim and the perpetrator, and from the legal or de facto authority that the perpetrator exerts over the victim.' Moreover, as reported by the Atlantic magazine, in 2005 France's Cour de Cassation (the country's final court of appeal in criminal cases) heard a case involving the sexual abuse of children aged between 18 months and five years. The court ruled that 'coercion or surprise results from the very young age of the children, which left them incapable of understanding the nature and seriousness of the acts which were perpetrated upon them.' These legislative and judicial measures and precedents do not in themselves constitute a definitive age of consent, but they demonstrate some recent movement in French law towards an acceptance of the premise that some sexual encounters (in this case between a child and adult) are inherently exploitative. They also broadened the definition of 'coercion' (one of the elements of rape in French law) to include non-physical coercion, and set out that the ages of the perpetrator and victim could, by themselves, constitute coercion. Calls for Reform The absence of a definitive age of sexual consent in France has caused problems over the years. In 2017, the nation was shocked by the rape acquittal of a 30-year-old man who had had sex with an 11-year-old girl, because the prosecutor could not establish, as Article 222-22 requires, that there had been 'constraint, threat, violence or surprise.' In a separate case, a 28-year-old man was initially charged with sexual assault (under Article 227-25) rather than rape after admitting to having sex with another 11-year-old girl, a prosecutorial decision that caused outrage. The presiding judge ordered that the charges be reevaluated, and the man was ultimately put on trial for rape, which carries a much stiffer penalty. These cases highlighted the somewhat muddled nature of France's laws on sex with children, which allowed - in the absence of a clearly-defined age of consent - lawyers to use the nuances of 'coercion' to obtain acquittals or lesser charges even for men who admitted to having had sex with pre-teen girls. These cases also reignited calls for a change in the law, with feminist and children's rights activists leading protests and demands for reform. An age of sexual consent law appeared to finally be on its way in November 2017, when Equality Minister Marlène Schiappa said the government was planning to make it part of a new set of laws on sexual violence, and that the age would likely be between 13 and 15. Speaking to BFMTV, Schiappa said: In the [planned] law against sexual and gender-based violence, we have identified three components, one of which is the creation of a minimum age of consent. This means that, under a certain age, we believe there can be no debate about the sexual consent of a child, and that any child under a certain age would automatically be treated as having been raped or sexually assaulted. In March 2018, Schiappa confirmed that an age of consent of 15 years old was in the bill that she and Justice Minister Nicole Belloubet had submitted for cabinet approval, and French newspaper Libération reported that a draft of the bill had contained the following wording: 'Any act of sexual penetration, no matter what kind, perpetrated by an adult on a child under the age of 15' would constitute rape, 'where the perpetrator knew, or could not have been unaware of, the victim's age.' However, when the legislation was voted on by the Assemblée Nationale (equivalent to the House of Representatives) just two months later, the age of consent provision had been removed. New Law Amid concerns about the constitutionality of the consent proposals, that part of the sexual violence legislation was dropped. Instead, the bill further strengthened the existing law on rape by adding the following paragraph to Article 222-22: Where these acts are perpetrated upon the person of a child aged under 15, moral coercion or surprise are characterized by an abuse of the vulnerability of a victim who does not have the judgement or understanding for such acts. The bill also increased the punishment for 'sexual infraction' (that is, sexual activity with a child where 'violence, coercion, threat or surprise' are not present): Excluding cases of rape or any kind of sexual assault, the perpetration by an adult of a sexual infraction upon a child aged under 15 is punishable by seven years in prison and a fine of €150,000 ($173,300). Finally, the bill (at least in principle) made it less likely that adults who had sex with children would go free, by instructing judges in rape trials to file charges of sexual infraction (Article 227-25) as a kind of fall-back in cases when the evidence was not sufficient to establish 'violence, coercion, threat or surprise' (the elements of rape under French law). The Assemblée Nationale passed an amended version of the bill in May, the Senate voted it through in late July, and the Assemblée Nationale definitively passed it into law in August 2018. The law also lengthened the statute of limitations for bringing a complaint of child sexual abuse (from 20 to 30 years after a victim turns 18), enhanced the penalties for online harassment, and introduced a new 'gender-based insult' offence ('outrage sexiste') that targets various forms of street harassment. The omission of a minimum age of sexual consent, however, prompted widespread criticism of the law. During a parliamentary debate in May, one member called it a 'climbdown,' another said 'this lacks ambition,' and Muriel Salmona, a psychiatrist and activist for abuse victims who have recovered traumatic memories, described it as 'a law emptied of its contents, which fails to protect children from rape and sexual assault.' An online petition started by feminist activists from Le Groupe F, which called upon President Emmanuel Macron to reject the new law, garnered almost 200,000 signatures. Conclusion It is true that the law introduced in France in 2018 did not prescribe a minimum age of sexual consent. However, no age of consent had previously existed in France, something that the Your News Wire article did not make clear. That article also failed to explain to readers that French law did already prescribe legal sanctions for adults who have sex with children, and that while the new law did not go as far as many critics wanted it to, it actually strengthened those existing protections. The article also failed to explain that the legislation broadened the definition of 'coercion' in French law, thereby making it easier for prosecutors to convict sexual predators of rape, and the legislation made it less likely that adults who have sex with children will go free by giving judges greater leeway in prosecuting them for 'sexual infraction' in cases when it is not possible to prove the elements required for a rape conviction.

Conclusion It is true that the law introduced in France in 2018 did not prescribe a minimum age of sexual consent. However, no age of consent had previously existed in France, something that the Your News Wire article did not make clear. That article also failed to explain to readers that French law did already prescribe legal sanctions for adults who have sex with children, and that while the new law did not go as far as many critics wanted it to, it actually strengthened those existing protections. The article also failed to explain that the legislation broadened the definition of 'coercion' in French law, thereby making it easier for prosecutors to convict sexual predators of rape, and the legislation made it less likely that adults who have sex with children will go free by giving judges greater leeway in prosecuting them for 'sexual infraction' in cases when it is not possible to prove the elements required for a rape conviction.

In August 2018, French politicians passed a law which stated that a child is capable of consenting to having sex with an adult.

Contradiction

France's somewhat complicated laws involving sexual abuse and violence came under scrutiny in 2018, when the government of President Emmanuel Macron drafted proposals to enhance protections for children against sexual assault. The 'Loi Schiappa,' named after Marlène Schiappa, the country's Minister for Equality, was dogged by controversy and opposition throughout its passage into law, with some activists accusing the legislation of being a 'missed opportunity' to beef up protections for children by establishing a minimum age of sexual consent. In August 2018, Your News Wire, a disreputable web site known for peddling conspiracy theories and junk news as well as distorting and sensationalizing real events, took aim at the new laws in a misleading article bearing the headline 'France Passes Law Saying Children Can Consent to Sex with Adults': President Macron's government has voted against having an age of consent in France, becoming the latest nation to give in to pressure from an international network of liberal activists determined to normalize pedophilia and decriminalize sex with children across the world. Federal law in France now has no legal age of consent, meaning adults who have sex with children of any age will not be prosecuted for rape if the child victim is unable to prove 'violence, threat, duress, or surprise.' The draft bill against sexual and gender-based violence, known as the Schiappa law, was signed into law by the French Parliament on 3 August, sparking outrage in France as parents and children's rights groups accuse Emmanuel Macron's government of betraying the nation's children. The Your News Wire article accurately presented some elements of the issue but was misleading in other important ways, wrongly suggesting that the legislation had repealed an existing age of consent, stating that 'Federal law in France now has no legal age of consent,' and proclaiming 'France passes law saying children can consent to sex with adults.' The law did not say any of that (although it is true that the law did not introduce, for what would have been the first time, a clearly-defined legal minimum age of sexual consent in France). The Your News Wire article also failed to note that the law strengthened and enhanced existing laws against the rape and sexual assault of children, and it contained measures that would give judges more leeway in prosecuting adults who have sex with children. Your News Wire's article was the subject of controversy in New Zealand, where the conservative National Party M.P. Judith Collins tweeted it out on 5 August 2018, challenging Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern to denounce the French legislation: Is @jacindaardern willing to denounce this legislation of child sexual abuse? https://t.co/6YMlJiO8zr - Judith Collins (@JudithCollinsMP) August 6, 2018 Collins was criticized for citing a 'fake news article' from Your News Wire, and Ardern took a question about Collins' tweet during a press conference on 6 August, though she declined to comment, saying 'I have not looked in any detail at what she has asked, or what sits behind it.' Existing Law There is no age of sexual consent in France. A familiar legal concept in most Western countries, the age of consent is based on the principle that below a certain age, children are by definition not capable of granting informed consent to sexual activity (no matter how intelligent or educated or experienced they may be). With an age of consent in place, any adult's engaging in any sexual activity with a child under a certain age is, by default, rape. In the United States and other countries this crime is often referred to as 'statutory rape,' but that crime doesn't exist in France. However, France does have other laws in place that protect children by criminalizing sexual abuse, something the Your News Wire article failed to explain. Article 227-25 of France's penal code outlaws 'sexual infraction on the person of a child aged under 15' ('atteinte sexuelle') and (up until August 2018) imposed a penalty of five years' imprisonment and a €75,000 ($86,720) fine for violations of that code. The fine and prison sentence were doubled under certain aggravating circumstances, such as when the attacker was an older family member or was abusing a position of authority, or when the sexual infraction came about due to online messaging (i.e., 'grooming'). Under Article 222-24 of France's penal code, rape of a child aged under 15 is considered an aggravated rape and is punishable by 20 years in prison. Under Article 222-22, rape is defined as 'a sexual assault committed with violence, coercion, threat or surprise.' Also important to consider is that a 2010 law specified that coercion 'can be physical or moral,' adding: 'Moral coercion can result from the age difference between an underage victim and the perpetrator, and from the legal or de facto authority that the perpetrator exerts over the victim.' Moreover, as reported by the Atlantic magazine, in 2005 France's Cour de Cassation (the country's final court of appeal in criminal cases) heard a case involving the sexual abuse of children aged between 18 months and five years. The court ruled that 'coercion or surprise results from the very young age of the children, which left them incapable of understanding the nature and seriousness of the acts which were perpetrated upon them.' These legislative and judicial measures and precedents do not in themselves constitute a definitive age of consent, but they demonstrate some recent movement in French law towards an acceptance of the premise that some sexual encounters (in this case between a child and adult) are inherently exploitative. They also broadened the definition of 'coercion' (one of the elements of rape in French law) to include non-physical coercion, and set out that the ages of the perpetrator and victim could, by themselves, constitute coercion. Calls for Reform The absence of a definitive age of sexual consent in France has caused problems over the years. In 2017, the nation was shocked by the rape acquittal of a 30-year-old man who had had sex with an 11-year-old girl, because the prosecutor could not establish, as Article 222-22 requires, that there had been 'constraint, threat, violence or surprise.' In a separate case, a 28-year-old man was initially charged with sexual assault (under Article 227-25) rather than rape after admitting to having sex with another 11-year-old girl, a prosecutorial decision that caused outrage. The presiding judge ordered that the charges be reevaluated, and the man was ultimately put on trial for rape, which carries a much stiffer penalty. These cases highlighted the somewhat muddled nature of France's laws on sex with children, which allowed - in the absence of a clearly-defined age of consent - lawyers to use the nuances of 'coercion' to obtain acquittals or lesser charges even for men who admitted to having had sex with pre-teen girls. These cases also reignited calls for a change in the law, with feminist and children's rights activists leading protests and demands for reform. An age of sexual consent law appeared to finally be on its way in November 2017, when Equality Minister Marlène Schiappa said the government was planning to make it part of a new set of laws on sexual violence, and that the age would likely be between 13 and 15. Speaking to BFMTV, Schiappa said: In the [planned] law against sexual and gender-based violence, we have identified three components, one of which is the creation of a minimum age of consent. This means that, under a certain age, we believe there can be no debate about the sexual consent of a child, and that any child under a certain age would automatically be treated as having been raped or sexually assaulted. In March 2018, Schiappa confirmed that an age of consent of 15 years old was in the bill that she and Justice Minister Nicole Belloubet had submitted for cabinet approval, and French newspaper Libération reported that a draft of the bill had contained the following wording: 'Any act of sexual penetration, no matter what kind, perpetrated by an adult on a child under the age of 15' would constitute rape, 'where the perpetrator knew, or could not have been unaware of, the victim's age.' However, when the legislation was voted on by the Assemblée Nationale (equivalent to the House of Representatives) just two months later, the age of consent provision had been removed. New Law Amid concerns about the constitutionality of the consent proposals, that part of the sexual violence legislation was dropped. Instead, the bill further strengthened the existing law on rape by adding the following paragraph to Article 222-22: Where these acts are perpetrated upon the person of a child aged under 15, moral coercion or surprise are characterized by an abuse of the vulnerability of a victim who does not have the judgement or understanding for such acts. The bill also increased the punishment for 'sexual infraction' (that is, sexual activity with a child where 'violence, coercion, threat or surprise' are not present): Excluding cases of rape or any kind of sexual assault, the perpetration by an adult of a sexual infraction upon a child aged under 15 is punishable by seven years in prison and a fine of €150,000 ($173,300). Finally, the bill (at least in principle) made it less likely that adults who had sex with children would go free, by instructing judges in rape trials to file charges of sexual infraction (Article 227-25) as a kind of fall-back in cases when the evidence was not sufficient to establish 'violence, coercion, threat or surprise' (the elements of rape under French law). The Assemblée Nationale passed an amended version of the bill in May, the Senate voted it through in late July, and the Assemblée Nationale definitively passed it into law in August 2018. The law also lengthened the statute of limitations for bringing a complaint of child sexual abuse (from 20 to 30 years after a victim turns 18), enhanced the penalties for online harassment, and introduced a new 'gender-based insult' offence ('outrage sexiste') that targets various forms of street harassment. The omission of a minimum age of sexual consent, however, prompted widespread criticism of the law. During a parliamentary debate in May, one member called it a 'climbdown,' another said 'this lacks ambition,' and Muriel Salmona, a psychiatrist and activist for abuse victims who have recovered traumatic memories, described it as 'a law emptied of its contents, which fails to protect children from rape and sexual assault.' An online petition started by feminist activists from Le Groupe F, which called upon President Emmanuel Macron to reject the new law, garnered almost 200,000 signatures. Conclusion It is true that the law introduced in France in 2018 did not prescribe a minimum age of sexual consent. However, no age of consent had previously existed in France, something that the Your News Wire article did not make clear. That article also failed to explain to readers that French law did already prescribe legal sanctions for adults who have sex with children, and that while the new law did not go as far as many critics wanted it to, it actually strengthened those existing protections. The article also failed to explain that the legislation broadened the definition of 'coercion' in French law, thereby making it easier for prosecutors to convict sexual predators of rape, and the legislation made it less likely that adults who have sex with children will go free by giving judges greater leeway in prosecuting them for 'sexual infraction' in cases when it is not possible to prove the elements required for a rape conviction.

Conclusion It is true that the law introduced in France in 2018 did not prescribe a minimum age of sexual consent. However, no age of consent had previously existed in France, something that the Your News Wire article did not make clear. That article also failed to explain to readers that French law did already prescribe legal sanctions for adults who have sex with children, and that while the new law did not go as far as many critics wanted it to, it actually strengthened those existing protections. The article also failed to explain that the legislation broadened the definition of 'coercion' in French law, thereby making it easier for prosecutors to convict sexual predators of rape, and the legislation made it less likely that adults who have sex with children will go free by giving judges greater leeway in prosecuting them for 'sexual infraction' in cases when it is not possible to prove the elements required for a rape conviction.

In August 2018, French politicians passed a law which stated that a child is capable of consenting to having sex with an adult.

Contradiction

France's somewhat complicated laws involving sexual abuse and violence came under scrutiny in 2018, when the government of President Emmanuel Macron drafted proposals to enhance protections for children against sexual assault. The 'Loi Schiappa,' named after Marlène Schiappa, the country's Minister for Equality, was dogged by controversy and opposition throughout its passage into law, with some activists accusing the legislation of being a 'missed opportunity' to beef up protections for children by establishing a minimum age of sexual consent. In August 2018, Your News Wire, a disreputable web site known for peddling conspiracy theories and junk news as well as distorting and sensationalizing real events, took aim at the new laws in a misleading article bearing the headline 'France Passes Law Saying Children Can Consent to Sex with Adults': President Macron's government has voted against having an age of consent in France, becoming the latest nation to give in to pressure from an international network of liberal activists determined to normalize pedophilia and decriminalize sex with children across the world. Federal law in France now has no legal age of consent, meaning adults who have sex with children of any age will not be prosecuted for rape if the child victim is unable to prove 'violence, threat, duress, or surprise.' The draft bill against sexual and gender-based violence, known as the Schiappa law, was signed into law by the French Parliament on 3 August, sparking outrage in France as parents and children's rights groups accuse Emmanuel Macron's government of betraying the nation's children. The Your News Wire article accurately presented some elements of the issue but was misleading in other important ways, wrongly suggesting that the legislation had repealed an existing age of consent, stating that 'Federal law in France now has no legal age of consent,' and proclaiming 'France passes law saying children can consent to sex with adults.' The law did not say any of that (although it is true that the law did not introduce, for what would have been the first time, a clearly-defined legal minimum age of sexual consent in France). The Your News Wire article also failed to note that the law strengthened and enhanced existing laws against the rape and sexual assault of children, and it contained measures that would give judges more leeway in prosecuting adults who have sex with children. Your News Wire's article was the subject of controversy in New Zealand, where the conservative National Party M.P. Judith Collins tweeted it out on 5 August 2018, challenging Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern to denounce the French legislation: Is @jacindaardern willing to denounce this legislation of child sexual abuse? https://t.co/6YMlJiO8zr - Judith Collins (@JudithCollinsMP) August 6, 2018 Collins was criticized for citing a 'fake news article' from Your News Wire, and Ardern took a question about Collins' tweet during a press conference on 6 August, though she declined to comment, saying 'I have not looked in any detail at what she has asked, or what sits behind it.' Existing Law There is no age of sexual consent in France. A familiar legal concept in most Western countries, the age of consent is based on the principle that below a certain age, children are by definition not capable of granting informed consent to sexual activity (no matter how intelligent or educated or experienced they may be). With an age of consent in place, any adult's engaging in any sexual activity with a child under a certain age is, by default, rape. In the United States and other countries this crime is often referred to as 'statutory rape,' but that crime doesn't exist in France. However, France does have other laws in place that protect children by criminalizing sexual abuse, something the Your News Wire article failed to explain. Article 227-25 of France's penal code outlaws 'sexual infraction on the person of a child aged under 15' ('atteinte sexuelle') and (up until August 2018) imposed a penalty of five years' imprisonment and a €75,000 ($86,720) fine for violations of that code. The fine and prison sentence were doubled under certain aggravating circumstances, such as when the attacker was an older family member or was abusing a position of authority, or when the sexual infraction came about due to online messaging (i.e., 'grooming'). Under Article 222-24 of France's penal code, rape of a child aged under 15 is considered an aggravated rape and is punishable by 20 years in prison. Under Article 222-22, rape is defined as 'a sexual assault committed with violence, coercion, threat or surprise.' Also important to consider is that a 2010 law specified that coercion 'can be physical or moral,' adding: 'Moral coercion can result from the age difference between an underage victim and the perpetrator, and from the legal or de facto authority that the perpetrator exerts over the victim.' Moreover, as reported by the Atlantic magazine, in 2005 France's Cour de Cassation (the country's final court of appeal in criminal cases) heard a case involving the sexual abuse of children aged between 18 months and five years. The court ruled that 'coercion or surprise results from the very young age of the children, which left them incapable of understanding the nature and seriousness of the acts which were perpetrated upon them.' These legislative and judicial measures and precedents do not in themselves constitute a definitive age of consent, but they demonstrate some recent movement in French law towards an acceptance of the premise that some sexual encounters (in this case between a child and adult) are inherently exploitative. They also broadened the definition of 'coercion' (one of the elements of rape in French law) to include non-physical coercion, and set out that the ages of the perpetrator and victim could, by themselves, constitute coercion. Calls for Reform The absence of a definitive age of sexual consent in France has caused problems over the years. In 2017, the nation was shocked by the rape acquittal of a 30-year-old man who had had sex with an 11-year-old girl, because the prosecutor could not establish, as Article 222-22 requires, that there had been 'constraint, threat, violence or surprise.' In a separate case, a 28-year-old man was initially charged with sexual assault (under Article 227-25) rather than rape after admitting to having sex with another 11-year-old girl, a prosecutorial decision that caused outrage. The presiding judge ordered that the charges be reevaluated, and the man was ultimately put on trial for rape, which carries a much stiffer penalty. These cases highlighted the somewhat muddled nature of France's laws on sex with children, which allowed - in the absence of a clearly-defined age of consent - lawyers to use the nuances of 'coercion' to obtain acquittals or lesser charges even for men who admitted to having had sex with pre-teen girls. These cases also reignited calls for a change in the law, with feminist and children's rights activists leading protests and demands for reform. An age of sexual consent law appeared to finally be on its way in November 2017, when Equality Minister Marlène Schiappa said the government was planning to make it part of a new set of laws on sexual violence, and that the age would likely be between 13 and 15. Speaking to BFMTV, Schiappa said: In the [planned] law against sexual and gender-based violence, we have identified three components, one of which is the creation of a minimum age of consent. This means that, under a certain age, we believe there can be no debate about the sexual consent of a child, and that any child under a certain age would automatically be treated as having been raped or sexually assaulted. In March 2018, Schiappa confirmed that an age of consent of 15 years old was in the bill that she and Justice Minister Nicole Belloubet had submitted for cabinet approval, and French newspaper Libération reported that a draft of the bill had contained the following wording: 'Any act of sexual penetration, no matter what kind, perpetrated by an adult on a child under the age of 15' would constitute rape, 'where the perpetrator knew, or could not have been unaware of, the victim's age.' However, when the legislation was voted on by the Assemblée Nationale (equivalent to the House of Representatives) just two months later, the age of consent provision had been removed. New Law Amid concerns about the constitutionality of the consent proposals, that part of the sexual violence legislation was dropped. Instead, the bill further strengthened the existing law on rape by adding the following paragraph to Article 222-22: Where these acts are perpetrated upon the person of a child aged under 15, moral coercion or surprise are characterized by an abuse of the vulnerability of a victim who does not have the judgement or understanding for such acts. The bill also increased the punishment for 'sexual infraction' (that is, sexual activity with a child where 'violence, coercion, threat or surprise' are not present): Excluding cases of rape or any kind of sexual assault, the perpetration by an adult of a sexual infraction upon a child aged under 15 is punishable by seven years in prison and a fine of €150,000 ($173,300). Finally, the bill (at least in principle) made it less likely that adults who had sex with children would go free, by instructing judges in rape trials to file charges of sexual infraction (Article 227-25) as a kind of fall-back in cases when the evidence was not sufficient to establish 'violence, coercion, threat or surprise' (the elements of rape under French law). The Assemblée Nationale passed an amended version of the bill in May, the Senate voted it through in late July, and the Assemblée Nationale definitively passed it into law in August 2018. The law also lengthened the statute of limitations for bringing a complaint of child sexual abuse (from 20 to 30 years after a victim turns 18), enhanced the penalties for online harassment, and introduced a new 'gender-based insult' offence ('outrage sexiste') that targets various forms of street harassment. The omission of a minimum age of sexual consent, however, prompted widespread criticism of the law. During a parliamentary debate in May, one member called it a 'climbdown,' another said 'this lacks ambition,' and Muriel Salmona, a psychiatrist and activist for abuse victims who have recovered traumatic memories, described it as 'a law emptied of its contents, which fails to protect children from rape and sexual assault.' An online petition started by feminist activists from Le Groupe F, which called upon President Emmanuel Macron to reject the new law, garnered almost 200,000 signatures. Conclusion It is true that the law introduced in France in 2018 did not prescribe a minimum age of sexual consent. However, no age of consent had previously existed in France, something that the Your News Wire article did not make clear. That article also failed to explain to readers that French law did already prescribe legal sanctions for adults who have sex with children, and that while the new law did not go as far as many critics wanted it to, it actually strengthened those existing protections. The article also failed to explain that the legislation broadened the definition of 'coercion' in French law, thereby making it easier for prosecutors to convict sexual predators of rape, and the legislation made it less likely that adults who have sex with children will go free by giving judges greater leeway in prosecuting them for 'sexual infraction' in cases when it is not possible to prove the elements required for a rape conviction.

Conclusion It is true that the law introduced in France in 2018 did not prescribe a minimum age of sexual consent. However, no age of consent had previously existed in France, something that the Your News Wire article did not make clear. That article also failed to explain to readers that French law did already prescribe legal sanctions for adults who have sex with children, and that while the new law did not go as far as many critics wanted it to, it actually strengthened those existing protections. The article also failed to explain that the legislation broadened the definition of 'coercion' in French law, thereby making it easier for prosecutors to convict sexual predators of rape, and the legislation made it less likely that adults who have sex with children will go free by giving judges greater leeway in prosecuting them for 'sexual infraction' in cases when it is not possible to prove the elements required for a rape conviction.

In August 2018, French politicians passed a law which stated that a child is capable of consenting to having sex with an adult.

Contradiction

France's somewhat complicated laws involving sexual abuse and violence came under scrutiny in 2018, when the government of President Emmanuel Macron drafted proposals to enhance protections for children against sexual assault. The 'Loi Schiappa,' named after Marlène Schiappa, the country's Minister for Equality, was dogged by controversy and opposition throughout its passage into law, with some activists accusing the legislation of being a 'missed opportunity' to beef up protections for children by establishing a minimum age of sexual consent. In August 2018, Your News Wire, a disreputable web site known for peddling conspiracy theories and junk news as well as distorting and sensationalizing real events, took aim at the new laws in a misleading article bearing the headline 'France Passes Law Saying Children Can Consent to Sex with Adults': President Macron's government has voted against having an age of consent in France, becoming the latest nation to give in to pressure from an international network of liberal activists determined to normalize pedophilia and decriminalize sex with children across the world. Federal law in France now has no legal age of consent, meaning adults who have sex with children of any age will not be prosecuted for rape if the child victim is unable to prove 'violence, threat, duress, or surprise.' The draft bill against sexual and gender-based violence, known as the Schiappa law, was signed into law by the French Parliament on 3 August, sparking outrage in France as parents and children's rights groups accuse Emmanuel Macron's government of betraying the nation's children. The Your News Wire article accurately presented some elements of the issue but was misleading in other important ways, wrongly suggesting that the legislation had repealed an existing age of consent, stating that 'Federal law in France now has no legal age of consent,' and proclaiming 'France passes law saying children can consent to sex with adults.' The law did not say any of that (although it is true that the law did not introduce, for what would have been the first time, a clearly-defined legal minimum age of sexual consent in France). The Your News Wire article also failed to note that the law strengthened and enhanced existing laws against the rape and sexual assault of children, and it contained measures that would give judges more leeway in prosecuting adults who have sex with children. Your News Wire's article was the subject of controversy in New Zealand, where the conservative National Party M.P. Judith Collins tweeted it out on 5 August 2018, challenging Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern to denounce the French legislation: Is @jacindaardern willing to denounce this legislation of child sexual abuse? https://t.co/6YMlJiO8zr - Judith Collins (@JudithCollinsMP) August 6, 2018 Collins was criticized for citing a 'fake news article' from Your News Wire, and Ardern took a question about Collins' tweet during a press conference on 6 August, though she declined to comment, saying 'I have not looked in any detail at what she has asked, or what sits behind it.' Existing Law There is no age of sexual consent in France. A familiar legal concept in most Western countries, the age of consent is based on the principle that below a certain age, children are by definition not capable of granting informed consent to sexual activity (no matter how intelligent or educated or experienced they may be). With an age of consent in place, any adult's engaging in any sexual activity with a child under a certain age is, by default, rape. In the United States and other countries this crime is often referred to as 'statutory rape,' but that crime doesn't exist in France. However, France does have other laws in place that protect children by criminalizing sexual abuse, something the Your News Wire article failed to explain. Article 227-25 of France's penal code outlaws 'sexual infraction on the person of a child aged under 15' ('atteinte sexuelle') and (up until August 2018) imposed a penalty of five years' imprisonment and a €75,000 ($86,720) fine for violations of that code. The fine and prison sentence were doubled under certain aggravating circumstances, such as when the attacker was an older family member or was abusing a position of authority, or when the sexual infraction came about due to online messaging (i.e., 'grooming'). Under Article 222-24 of France's penal code, rape of a child aged under 15 is considered an aggravated rape and is punishable by 20 years in prison. Under Article 222-22, rape is defined as 'a sexual assault committed with violence, coercion, threat or surprise.' Also important to consider is that a 2010 law specified that coercion 'can be physical or moral,' adding: 'Moral coercion can result from the age difference between an underage victim and the perpetrator, and from the legal or de facto authority that the perpetrator exerts over the victim.' Moreover, as reported by the Atlantic magazine, in 2005 France's Cour de Cassation (the country's final court of appeal in criminal cases) heard a case involving the sexual abuse of children aged between 18 months and five years. The court ruled that 'coercion or surprise results from the very young age of the children, which left them incapable of understanding the nature and seriousness of the acts which were perpetrated upon them.' These legislative and judicial measures and precedents do not in themselves constitute a definitive age of consent, but they demonstrate some recent movement in French law towards an acceptance of the premise that some sexual encounters (in this case between a child and adult) are inherently exploitative. They also broadened the definition of 'coercion' (one of the elements of rape in French law) to include non-physical coercion, and set out that the ages of the perpetrator and victim could, by themselves, constitute coercion. Calls for Reform The absence of a definitive age of sexual consent in France has caused problems over the years. In 2017, the nation was shocked by the rape acquittal of a 30-year-old man who had had sex with an 11-year-old girl, because the prosecutor could not establish, as Article 222-22 requires, that there had been 'constraint, threat, violence or surprise.' In a separate case, a 28-year-old man was initially charged with sexual assault (under Article 227-25) rather than rape after admitting to having sex with another 11-year-old girl, a prosecutorial decision that caused outrage. The presiding judge ordered that the charges be reevaluated, and the man was ultimately put on trial for rape, which carries a much stiffer penalty. These cases highlighted the somewhat muddled nature of France's laws on sex with children, which allowed - in the absence of a clearly-defined age of consent - lawyers to use the nuances of 'coercion' to obtain acquittals or lesser charges even for men who admitted to having had sex with pre-teen girls. These cases also reignited calls for a change in the law, with feminist and children's rights activists leading protests and demands for reform. An age of sexual consent law appeared to finally be on its way in November 2017, when Equality Minister Marlène Schiappa said the government was planning to make it part of a new set of laws on sexual violence, and that the age would likely be between 13 and 15. Speaking to BFMTV, Schiappa said: In the [planned] law against sexual and gender-based violence, we have identified three components, one of which is the creation of a minimum age of consent. This means that, under a certain age, we believe there can be no debate about the sexual consent of a child, and that any child under a certain age would automatically be treated as having been raped or sexually assaulted. In March 2018, Schiappa confirmed that an age of consent of 15 years old was in the bill that she and Justice Minister Nicole Belloubet had submitted for cabinet approval, and French newspaper Libération reported that a draft of the bill had contained the following wording: 'Any act of sexual penetration, no matter what kind, perpetrated by an adult on a child under the age of 15' would constitute rape, 'where the perpetrator knew, or could not have been unaware of, the victim's age.' However, when the legislation was voted on by the Assemblée Nationale (equivalent to the House of Representatives) just two months later, the age of consent provision had been removed. New Law Amid concerns about the constitutionality of the consent proposals, that part of the sexual violence legislation was dropped. Instead, the bill further strengthened the existing law on rape by adding the following paragraph to Article 222-22: Where these acts are perpetrated upon the person of a child aged under 15, moral coercion or surprise are characterized by an abuse of the vulnerability of a victim who does not have the judgement or understanding for such acts. The bill also increased the punishment for 'sexual infraction' (that is, sexual activity with a child where 'violence, coercion, threat or surprise' are not present): Excluding cases of rape or any kind of sexual assault, the perpetration by an adult of a sexual infraction upon a child aged under 15 is punishable by seven years in prison and a fine of €150,000 ($173,300). Finally, the bill (at least in principle) made it less likely that adults who had sex with children would go free, by instructing judges in rape trials to file charges of sexual infraction (Article 227-25) as a kind of fall-back in cases when the evidence was not sufficient to establish 'violence, coercion, threat or surprise' (the elements of rape under French law). The Assemblée Nationale passed an amended version of the bill in May, the Senate voted it through in late July, and the Assemblée Nationale definitively passed it into law in August 2018. The law also lengthened the statute of limitations for bringing a complaint of child sexual abuse (from 20 to 30 years after a victim turns 18), enhanced the penalties for online harassment, and introduced a new 'gender-based insult' offence ('outrage sexiste') that targets various forms of street harassment. The omission of a minimum age of sexual consent, however, prompted widespread criticism of the law. During a parliamentary debate in May, one member called it a 'climbdown,' another said 'this lacks ambition,' and Muriel Salmona, a psychiatrist and activist for abuse victims who have recovered traumatic memories, described it as 'a law emptied of its contents, which fails to protect children from rape and sexual assault.' An online petition started by feminist activists from Le Groupe F, which called upon President Emmanuel Macron to reject the new law, garnered almost 200,000 signatures. Conclusion It is true that the law introduced in France in 2018 did not prescribe a minimum age of sexual consent. However, no age of consent had previously existed in France, something that the Your News Wire article did not make clear. That article also failed to explain to readers that French law did already prescribe legal sanctions for adults who have sex with children, and that while the new law did not go as far as many critics wanted it to, it actually strengthened those existing protections. The article also failed to explain that the legislation broadened the definition of 'coercion' in French law, thereby making it easier for prosecutors to convict sexual predators of rape, and the legislation made it less likely that adults who have sex with children will go free by giving judges greater leeway in prosecuting them for 'sexual infraction' in cases when it is not possible to prove the elements required for a rape conviction.

Conclusion It is true that the law introduced in France in 2018 did not prescribe a minimum age of sexual consent. However, no age of consent had previously existed in France, something that the Your News Wire article did not make clear. That article also failed to explain to readers that French law did already prescribe legal sanctions for adults who have sex with children, and that while the new law did not go as far as many critics wanted it to, it actually strengthened those existing protections. The article also failed to explain that the legislation broadened the definition of 'coercion' in French law, thereby making it easier for prosecutors to convict sexual predators of rape, and the legislation made it less likely that adults who have sex with children will go free by giving judges greater leeway in prosecuting them for 'sexual infraction' in cases when it is not possible to prove the elements required for a rape conviction.

In August 2018, French politicians passed a law which stated that a child is capable of consenting to having sex with an adult.

Contradiction

France's somewhat complicated laws involving sexual abuse and violence came under scrutiny in 2018, when the government of President Emmanuel Macron drafted proposals to enhance protections for children against sexual assault. The 'Loi Schiappa,' named after Marlène Schiappa, the country's Minister for Equality, was dogged by controversy and opposition throughout its passage into law, with some activists accusing the legislation of being a 'missed opportunity' to beef up protections for children by establishing a minimum age of sexual consent. In August 2018, Your News Wire, a disreputable web site known for peddling conspiracy theories and junk news as well as distorting and sensationalizing real events, took aim at the new laws in a misleading article bearing the headline 'France Passes Law Saying Children Can Consent to Sex with Adults': President Macron's government has voted against having an age of consent in France, becoming the latest nation to give in to pressure from an international network of liberal activists determined to normalize pedophilia and decriminalize sex with children across the world. Federal law in France now has no legal age of consent, meaning adults who have sex with children of any age will not be prosecuted for rape if the child victim is unable to prove 'violence, threat, duress, or surprise.' The draft bill against sexual and gender-based violence, known as the Schiappa law, was signed into law by the French Parliament on 3 August, sparking outrage in France as parents and children's rights groups accuse Emmanuel Macron's government of betraying the nation's children. The Your News Wire article accurately presented some elements of the issue but was misleading in other important ways, wrongly suggesting that the legislation had repealed an existing age of consent, stating that 'Federal law in France now has no legal age of consent,' and proclaiming 'France passes law saying children can consent to sex with adults.' The law did not say any of that (although it is true that the law did not introduce, for what would have been the first time, a clearly-defined legal minimum age of sexual consent in France). The Your News Wire article also failed to note that the law strengthened and enhanced existing laws against the rape and sexual assault of children, and it contained measures that would give judges more leeway in prosecuting adults who have sex with children. Your News Wire's article was the subject of controversy in New Zealand, where the conservative National Party M.P. Judith Collins tweeted it out on 5 August 2018, challenging Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern to denounce the French legislation: Is @jacindaardern willing to denounce this legislation of child sexual abuse? https://t.co/6YMlJiO8zr - Judith Collins (@JudithCollinsMP) August 6, 2018 Collins was criticized for citing a 'fake news article' from Your News Wire, and Ardern took a question about Collins' tweet during a press conference on 6 August, though she declined to comment, saying 'I have not looked in any detail at what she has asked, or what sits behind it.' Existing Law There is no age of sexual consent in France. A familiar legal concept in most Western countries, the age of consent is based on the principle that below a certain age, children are by definition not capable of granting informed consent to sexual activity (no matter how intelligent or educated or experienced they may be). With an age of consent in place, any adult's engaging in any sexual activity with a child under a certain age is, by default, rape. In the United States and other countries this crime is often referred to as 'statutory rape,' but that crime doesn't exist in France. However, France does have other laws in place that protect children by criminalizing sexual abuse, something the Your News Wire article failed to explain. Article 227-25 of France's penal code outlaws 'sexual infraction on the person of a child aged under 15' ('atteinte sexuelle') and (up until August 2018) imposed a penalty of five years' imprisonment and a €75,000 ($86,720) fine for violations of that code. The fine and prison sentence were doubled under certain aggravating circumstances, such as when the attacker was an older family member or was abusing a position of authority, or when the sexual infraction came about due to online messaging (i.e., 'grooming'). Under Article 222-24 of France's penal code, rape of a child aged under 15 is considered an aggravated rape and is punishable by 20 years in prison. Under Article 222-22, rape is defined as 'a sexual assault committed with violence, coercion, threat or surprise.' Also important to consider is that a 2010 law specified that coercion 'can be physical or moral,' adding: 'Moral coercion can result from the age difference between an underage victim and the perpetrator, and from the legal or de facto authority that the perpetrator exerts over the victim.' Moreover, as reported by the Atlantic magazine, in 2005 France's Cour de Cassation (the country's final court of appeal in criminal cases) heard a case involving the sexual abuse of children aged between 18 months and five years. The court ruled that 'coercion or surprise results from the very young age of the children, which left them incapable of understanding the nature and seriousness of the acts which were perpetrated upon them.' These legislative and judicial measures and precedents do not in themselves constitute a definitive age of consent, but they demonstrate some recent movement in French law towards an acceptance of the premise that some sexual encounters (in this case between a child and adult) are inherently exploitative. They also broadened the definition of 'coercion' (one of the elements of rape in French law) to include non-physical coercion, and set out that the ages of the perpetrator and victim could, by themselves, constitute coercion. Calls for Reform The absence of a definitive age of sexual consent in France has caused problems over the years. In 2017, the nation was shocked by the rape acquittal of a 30-year-old man who had had sex with an 11-year-old girl, because the prosecutor could not establish, as Article 222-22 requires, that there had been 'constraint, threat, violence or surprise.' In a separate case, a 28-year-old man was initially charged with sexual assault (under Article 227-25) rather than rape after admitting to having sex with another 11-year-old girl, a prosecutorial decision that caused outrage. The presiding judge ordered that the charges be reevaluated, and the man was ultimately put on trial for rape, which carries a much stiffer penalty. These cases highlighted the somewhat muddled nature of France's laws on sex with children, which allowed - in the absence of a clearly-defined age of consent - lawyers to use the nuances of 'coercion' to obtain acquittals or lesser charges even for men who admitted to having had sex with pre-teen girls. These cases also reignited calls for a change in the law, with feminist and children's rights activists leading protests and demands for reform. An age of sexual consent law appeared to finally be on its way in November 2017, when Equality Minister Marlène Schiappa said the government was planning to make it part of a new set of laws on sexual violence, and that the age would likely be between 13 and 15. Speaking to BFMTV, Schiappa said: In the [planned] law against sexual and gender-based violence, we have identified three components, one of which is the creation of a minimum age of consent. This means that, under a certain age, we believe there can be no debate about the sexual consent of a child, and that any child under a certain age would automatically be treated as having been raped or sexually assaulted. In March 2018, Schiappa confirmed that an age of consent of 15 years old was in the bill that she and Justice Minister Nicole Belloubet had submitted for cabinet approval, and French newspaper Libération reported that a draft of the bill had contained the following wording: 'Any act of sexual penetration, no matter what kind, perpetrated by an adult on a child under the age of 15' would constitute rape, 'where the perpetrator knew, or could not have been unaware of, the victim's age.' However, when the legislation was voted on by the Assemblée Nationale (equivalent to the House of Representatives) just two months later, the age of consent provision had been removed. New Law Amid concerns about the constitutionality of the consent proposals, that part of the sexual violence legislation was dropped. Instead, the bill further strengthened the existing law on rape by adding the following paragraph to Article 222-22: Where these acts are perpetrated upon the person of a child aged under 15, moral coercion or surprise are characterized by an abuse of the vulnerability of a victim who does not have the judgement or understanding for such acts. The bill also increased the punishment for 'sexual infraction' (that is, sexual activity with a child where 'violence, coercion, threat or surprise' are not present): Excluding cases of rape or any kind of sexual assault, the perpetration by an adult of a sexual infraction upon a child aged under 15 is punishable by seven years in prison and a fine of €150,000 ($173,300). Finally, the bill (at least in principle) made it less likely that adults who had sex with children would go free, by instructing judges in rape trials to file charges of sexual infraction (Article 227-25) as a kind of fall-back in cases when the evidence was not sufficient to establish 'violence, coercion, threat or surprise' (the elements of rape under French law). The Assemblée Nationale passed an amended version of the bill in May, the Senate voted it through in late July, and the Assemblée Nationale definitively passed it into law in August 2018. The law also lengthened the statute of limitations for bringing a complaint of child sexual abuse (from 20 to 30 years after a victim turns 18), enhanced the penalties for online harassment, and introduced a new 'gender-based insult' offence ('outrage sexiste') that targets various forms of street harassment. The omission of a minimum age of sexual consent, however, prompted widespread criticism of the law. During a parliamentary debate in May, one member called it a 'climbdown,' another said 'this lacks ambition,' and Muriel Salmona, a psychiatrist and activist for abuse victims who have recovered traumatic memories, described it as 'a law emptied of its contents, which fails to protect children from rape and sexual assault.' An online petition started by feminist activists from Le Groupe F, which called upon President Emmanuel Macron to reject the new law, garnered almost 200,000 signatures. Conclusion It is true that the law introduced in France in 2018 did not prescribe a minimum age of sexual consent. However, no age of consent had previously existed in France, something that the Your News Wire article did not make clear. That article also failed to explain to readers that French law did already prescribe legal sanctions for adults who have sex with children, and that while the new law did not go as far as many critics wanted it to, it actually strengthened those existing protections. The article also failed to explain that the legislation broadened the definition of 'coercion' in French law, thereby making it easier for prosecutors to convict sexual predators of rape, and the legislation made it less likely that adults who have sex with children will go free by giving judges greater leeway in prosecuting them for 'sexual infraction' in cases when it is not possible to prove the elements required for a rape conviction.

Conclusion It is true that the law introduced in France in 2018 did not prescribe a minimum age of sexual consent. However, no age of consent had previously existed in France, something that the Your News Wire article did not make clear. That article also failed to explain to readers that French law did already prescribe legal sanctions for adults who have sex with children, and that while the new law did not go as far as many critics wanted it to, it actually strengthened those existing protections. The article also failed to explain that the legislation broadened the definition of 'coercion' in French law, thereby making it easier for prosecutors to convict sexual predators of rape, and the legislation made it less likely that adults who have sex with children will go free by giving judges greater leeway in prosecuting them for 'sexual infraction' in cases when it is not possible to prove the elements required for a rape conviction.

A husband used a drone to catch his cheating wife at CVS.

Contradiction

In March 2021, an online advertisement promised quite the story about a man using a drone to catch his cheating wife in a CVS parking lot. The ad read: 'Husband Buys a Drone to See if His Wife is Cheating and Is Left Shocked When He Sees What She's Doing.' The ad in question was misleading, to say the least. The story all began in November 2016 with a video. A YouTube user by the name of YAOG posted the video with the title: 'Drone used to catch cheating wife.' As of early 2021, it has been viewed nearly 15 million times. The description of the drone video said that he purportedly caught his wife cheating on him at CVS: Used my drone to catch my wife meeting a guy at the local CVS. She had been getting called in early to work more often the past couple weeks, and then I got a call from someone telling me something was going on. I tried to follow her a couple times prior but both times she went to work, so I'm not sure if she was getting tipped off or I was just unlucky. So I took the drone up and that worked. Any questions you have ask in the comments. Thanks. The couple, purportedly named John and Donna, did not reveal a last name to the public. While the video may have convinced some viewers of its authenticity, others were skeptical. John, the husband, initially insisted that the video was real. However, in October 2018, almost two years later, they admitted it was all a hoax: Some readers might be skeptical that the cheating did occur, and the couple was perhaps trying to save face regarding the possibility of infidelity in their marriage. However, John also provided drone video evidence that his wife did not cheat on him in a CVS parking lot: John revealed that he was driving the car in the CVS parking lot, presumably while flying the drone from the driver's seat. As of early 2021, both of the 'it was a hoax' videos racked up a total of over 100,000 views. Again, the original viral video had been viewed nearly 15 million times. In sum, a man did not use a drone to catch his wife cheating on him at CVS. Nearly two years after the viral video was posted, the couple provided evidence that showed it was all fake. Snopes debunks a wide range of content, and online advertisements are no exception. Misleading ads often lead to obscure websites that host lengthy slideshow articles with lots of pages. It's called advertising 'arbitrage.' The advertiser's goal is to make more money on ads displayed on the slideshow's pages than it cost to show the initial ad that lured them to it. Feel free to submit ads to us, and be sure to include a screenshot of the ad and the link to where the ad leads.

In sum, a man did not use a drone to catch his wife cheating on him at CVS. Nearly two years after the viral video was posted, the couple provided evidence that showed it was all fake. Snopes debunks a wide range of content, and online advertisements are no exception. Misleading ads often lead to obscure websites that host lengthy slideshow articles with lots of pages. It's called advertising 'arbitrage.' The advertiser's goal is to make more money on ads displayed on the slideshow's pages than it cost to show the initial ad that lured them to it. Feel free to submit ads to us, and be sure to include a screenshot of the ad and the link to where the ad leads.

An animated image shows Mount Vesuvius erupting during a firework celebration in Naples, Italy.

Contradiction

An animated image purportedly showing people in Naples, Italy, attempting to 'upstage' a volcanic eruption with a firework display reappeared on social media in May 2017: This image, which is often shared under the title 'The Last New Year's Eve in Naples,' does not depict a real event. This image is actually a cinemagraph created by Reddit user quasimai in 2015. Although the fireworks shown in the composite are real, the volcanic eruption shown in the image was digitally added: I was wondering if someone would actually believe this :)). I obviously faked the eruption. If Vesuvio had erupted the medias would have talked about it because it has been sleeping for 70 years and next eruption will be catastrophic. Otherwise the fireworks are real, and I can assure you that New year's eve in Naples is absolutely astonishing Here's a video of the New Year's firework display in Naples (sans volcano):

An animated image purportedly showing people in Naples, Italy, attempting to 'upstage' a volcanic eruption with a firework display reappeared on social media in May 2017: This image, which is often shared under the title 'The Last New Year's Eve in Naples,' does not depict a real event. This image is actually a cinemagraph created by Reddit user quasimai in 2015. Although the fireworks shown in the composite are real, the volcanic eruption shown in the image was digitally added: I was wondering if someone would actually believe this :)). I obviously faked the eruption. If Vesuvio had erupted the medias would have talked about it because it has been sleeping for 70 years and next eruption will be catastrophic. Otherwise the fireworks are real, and I can assure you that New year's eve in Naples is absolutely astonishing Here's a video of the New Year's firework display in Naples (sans volcano):

In June 2020, the Michigan House of Representatives passed legislation that would allow employers to microchip workers on a voluntary basis.

Contradiction

On June 24, 2020, the Michigan House of Representatives approved the 'Microchip Protection Act' - a three-page piece of legislation that establishes guidelines for how businesses can use microchips implanted under people's skin in their workflows. Some onlookers interpreted the vote as lawmakers' endorsement of the use of tiny implant devices on humans - a relatively rare practice in the U.S. - and alleged online that the bill was part of some nefarious scheme by the Michigan government against citizens. Introduced by Republican State Rep. Bronna Kahle, the proposal was pending final approval from the state Senate and Gov. Gretchen Whitmer as of this writing. In the weeks that followed the House's decision, the website Great Game India (which was a major player in spreading misinformation about the origins of the coronavirus that causes COVID-19 and falsely claimed billionaire Bill Gates and the ID2020 Coalition was behind a grand surveillance plan to microchip the global population) published on July 4, 2020, for example: The Michigan House of Representatives has passed a controversial bill to microchip humans voluntarily in the state under the guise of protecting their privacy. The Microchip Protection Act would allow Michigan employers to use microchipping of their workers with their consent. However, research has shown that [radio frequency identification] RFID transponders causes cancer. Adding to that unsubstantiated concern regarding citizens' health, a viral web page by a Michigan-based blogger alleged that the legislation posed a threat to citizens' privacy and civil rights. He wrote: The bill verbage [sic] blocks employers from requiring microchips, but also creates a legitimacy for employers considering using the technology in the first place... If everyone is walking around with a unique identifier, privacy is out the window. ...This means anyone could track you. Stores could track your entry and exit, showing you targeted ads. Thieves could be signaled when you leave your home. Your movements and contacts could be used against you in any number of ways, including identity theft. Numerous readers reached out to Snopes in July 2020 to investigate the legitimacy of the social media and blog posts regarding the Michigan proposal. And upon our analysis of the postings, we deemed the underlying assertion to be this: The Michigan House passed legislation that would allow employers to microchip workers on a voluntary basis. To fully explore that claim, here's important context: Only a few U.S.-based companies had publicized the use of radio-frequency identification tags (RFID), or microchips, in their workplace at the time of the Michigan House's vote, and none of them were believed to be in the state, according to Kahle. The technology trend among U.S businesses seemed to have emerged after Sweden office complex Epicenter began offering RFID microchip implants to employees in 2015 (we explain more below). So to recap the facts, yes, the Michigan House approved a bill governing the use of microchips with a landslide vote, 104-2 (see the bill's legislative actions here), affirming the former aspect of the above-mentioned claim. Less simple, however, is the explanation for what the measure aimed to accomplish. To unpack that part of critics' assertion, we reviewed the specifics of the Microchip Protection Act, House Bill No. 5672, which can be read in a PDF format here. The bill comprises five sections, as well as an introduction that describes the act's purpose as this: In other words, the legislation would give workers or potential hires the legal grounds to sue bosses who make human microchips of any kind mandatory for employment. The bill would also establish protections for workers who do not want to use the technology and feel that their employers treated them differently compared to their pro-microchip coworkers. The first two sections of the bill define terms under which those provisions apply: any situation when technology is implanted, injected, inhaled 'or otherwise incorporat[ed] ... into the employee's or prospective employee's body.' Then, in the third provision, the legislation includes the following language: An employer may, as a condition of employment, as a condition of employment in a particular position, or as a condition of receiving additional compensation or other benefits, require an employee or prospective employee to comply with a court order that directs the employee or prospective employee to [have a microchip implanted]. That would mean if a judge for whatever reason ruled that a Michigan citizen must use a microchip (the technology could serve as a tool for probation or parole officials to track someone who is serving a criminal sentence, for instance) an employer of that individual could require him/her/them to use the device at work. The fourth section of the bill goes on to explain under what circumstances those affected employees or the court system could seek damages when or if employers violate the exception to the measure prohibiting mandatory microchipping. In reference to the above-mentioned claim, however, the final part of the legislation is key: 'This act does not limit an employee's or prospective employee's rights or remedies under any other state or federal law,' which include laws protecting the privacy and confidentiality of citizens. Any notion that the measure would establish a legal framework for Michigan employers to microchip people against their will is completely false. And here's the fundamental misconception among people who raised concerns over the Michigan proposal: Even without the legislation, anyone in the state can already voluntarily implant themselves with the device or offer the technology to employees. Wisconsin company Three Square Market, which specializes in vending machines and self-service software for offices, was the first widely known U.S. company to offer the devices to workers, in July 2017. There, employees can voluntarily get the devices implanted into their hands or use a wristband with the same RFID microchip to make purchases in the company's break room and use office equipment, among other things. The microchips use the same near-field communication technology utilized by contactless payment systems such as Apple Pay. In early 2020, Ifeoma Ajunwa, a Cornell University labor and employment law professor who studies the use of workplace technology, told MarketWatch there are likely more American businesses that use the technology, 'but they are probably not advertising it.' So as the technology becomes more prevalent, states are enacting new laws to regulate it. As of early 2020, more than a dozen states were either considering legislation like the Michigan bill that pertains specifically to workers' rights or were mulling more broad rules to govern the technology, or they had already passed such laws, according to analysis of state statutes on microchipping by the National Conference of State Legislatures and LexisNexis, a database of legal research. Among that minority group of U.S. states was Indiana, for instance, which established a law that took effect July 1, 2020. 'Microchipping is on the rise, and Hoosiers need to be aware of their rights,' said the legislation's author, Republican Rep. Alan Morrison, before the bill had passed. 'It is crucial to take the necessary steps now to ensure more safety and privacy in the future.' Similarly, Kahle, the sponsor of the Michigan proposal, said even though the practice was relatively rare as of mid-2020, she was attempting to prepare her state for a future when and if the technology is more popular. She said in a June 24, 2020, statement: With the way technology has increased over the years and as it continues to grow, it's important Michigan job providers balance the interests of the company with their employees' expectations of privacy. ...Microchipping has been brought up in many conversations as companies across the country are exploring cost-effective ways to increase workplace efficiency. ... Despite this type of technology not quite making its way into our state yet, I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes a standard business practice statewide within the next few years. ...We should absolutely take every step possible to get ahead of these devices. In sum, while it was true that the Michigan House approved legislation governing the use of microchips, it was false to claim that the bill itself would allow employers to inject the devices - that practice was not prohibited by existing law and the in-question legislation would not suddenly permit it. Rather, the Microchip Protection Act established protections for employees who do not want to use the technology at work. For those reasons, we rate the claim 'Mostly False.'

In sum, while it was true that the Michigan House approved legislation governing the use of microchips, it was false to claim that the bill itself would allow employers to inject the devices - that practice was not prohibited by existing law and the in-question legislation would not suddenly permit it. Rather, the Microchip Protection Act established protections for employees who do not want to use the technology at work. For those reasons, we rate the claim 'Mostly False.'

In June 2020, the Michigan House of Representatives passed legislation that would allow employers to microchip workers on a voluntary basis.

Contradiction

On June 24, 2020, the Michigan House of Representatives approved the 'Microchip Protection Act' - a three-page piece of legislation that establishes guidelines for how businesses can use microchips implanted under people's skin in their workflows. Some onlookers interpreted the vote as lawmakers' endorsement of the use of tiny implant devices on humans - a relatively rare practice in the U.S. - and alleged online that the bill was part of some nefarious scheme by the Michigan government against citizens. Introduced by Republican State Rep. Bronna Kahle, the proposal was pending final approval from the state Senate and Gov. Gretchen Whitmer as of this writing. In the weeks that followed the House's decision, the website Great Game India (which was a major player in spreading misinformation about the origins of the coronavirus that causes COVID-19 and falsely claimed billionaire Bill Gates and the ID2020 Coalition was behind a grand surveillance plan to microchip the global population) published on July 4, 2020, for example: The Michigan House of Representatives has passed a controversial bill to microchip humans voluntarily in the state under the guise of protecting their privacy. The Microchip Protection Act would allow Michigan employers to use microchipping of their workers with their consent. However, research has shown that [radio frequency identification] RFID transponders causes cancer. Adding to that unsubstantiated concern regarding citizens' health, a viral web page by a Michigan-based blogger alleged that the legislation posed a threat to citizens' privacy and civil rights. He wrote: The bill verbage [sic] blocks employers from requiring microchips, but also creates a legitimacy for employers considering using the technology in the first place... If everyone is walking around with a unique identifier, privacy is out the window. ...This means anyone could track you. Stores could track your entry and exit, showing you targeted ads. Thieves could be signaled when you leave your home. Your movements and contacts could be used against you in any number of ways, including identity theft. Numerous readers reached out to Snopes in July 2020 to investigate the legitimacy of the social media and blog posts regarding the Michigan proposal. And upon our analysis of the postings, we deemed the underlying assertion to be this: The Michigan House passed legislation that would allow employers to microchip workers on a voluntary basis. To fully explore that claim, here's important context: Only a few U.S.-based companies had publicized the use of radio-frequency identification tags (RFID), or microchips, in their workplace at the time of the Michigan House's vote, and none of them were believed to be in the state, according to Kahle. The technology trend among U.S businesses seemed to have emerged after Sweden office complex Epicenter began offering RFID microchip implants to employees in 2015 (we explain more below). So to recap the facts, yes, the Michigan House approved a bill governing the use of microchips with a landslide vote, 104-2 (see the bill's legislative actions here), affirming the former aspect of the above-mentioned claim. Less simple, however, is the explanation for what the measure aimed to accomplish. To unpack that part of critics' assertion, we reviewed the specifics of the Microchip Protection Act, House Bill No. 5672, which can be read in a PDF format here. The bill comprises five sections, as well as an introduction that describes the act's purpose as this: In other words, the legislation would give workers or potential hires the legal grounds to sue bosses who make human microchips of any kind mandatory for employment. The bill would also establish protections for workers who do not want to use the technology and feel that their employers treated them differently compared to their pro-microchip coworkers. The first two sections of the bill define terms under which those provisions apply: any situation when technology is implanted, injected, inhaled 'or otherwise incorporat[ed] ... into the employee's or prospective employee's body.' Then, in the third provision, the legislation includes the following language: An employer may, as a condition of employment, as a condition of employment in a particular position, or as a condition of receiving additional compensation or other benefits, require an employee or prospective employee to comply with a court order that directs the employee or prospective employee to [have a microchip implanted]. That would mean if a judge for whatever reason ruled that a Michigan citizen must use a microchip (the technology could serve as a tool for probation or parole officials to track someone who is serving a criminal sentence, for instance) an employer of that individual could require him/her/them to use the device at work. The fourth section of the bill goes on to explain under what circumstances those affected employees or the court system could seek damages when or if employers violate the exception to the measure prohibiting mandatory microchipping. In reference to the above-mentioned claim, however, the final part of the legislation is key: 'This act does not limit an employee's or prospective employee's rights or remedies under any other state or federal law,' which include laws protecting the privacy and confidentiality of citizens. Any notion that the measure would establish a legal framework for Michigan employers to microchip people against their will is completely false. And here's the fundamental misconception among people who raised concerns over the Michigan proposal: Even without the legislation, anyone in the state can already voluntarily implant themselves with the device or offer the technology to employees. Wisconsin company Three Square Market, which specializes in vending machines and self-service software for offices, was the first widely known U.S. company to offer the devices to workers, in July 2017. There, employees can voluntarily get the devices implanted into their hands or use a wristband with the same RFID microchip to make purchases in the company's break room and use office equipment, among other things. The microchips use the same near-field communication technology utilized by contactless payment systems such as Apple Pay. In early 2020, Ifeoma Ajunwa, a Cornell University labor and employment law professor who studies the use of workplace technology, told MarketWatch there are likely more American businesses that use the technology, 'but they are probably not advertising it.' So as the technology becomes more prevalent, states are enacting new laws to regulate it. As of early 2020, more than a dozen states were either considering legislation like the Michigan bill that pertains specifically to workers' rights or were mulling more broad rules to govern the technology, or they had already passed such laws, according to analysis of state statutes on microchipping by the National Conference of State Legislatures and LexisNexis, a database of legal research. Among that minority group of U.S. states was Indiana, for instance, which established a law that took effect July 1, 2020. 'Microchipping is on the rise, and Hoosiers need to be aware of their rights,' said the legislation's author, Republican Rep. Alan Morrison, before the bill had passed. 'It is crucial to take the necessary steps now to ensure more safety and privacy in the future.' Similarly, Kahle, the sponsor of the Michigan proposal, said even though the practice was relatively rare as of mid-2020, she was attempting to prepare her state for a future when and if the technology is more popular. She said in a June 24, 2020, statement: With the way technology has increased over the years and as it continues to grow, it's important Michigan job providers balance the interests of the company with their employees' expectations of privacy. ...Microchipping has been brought up in many conversations as companies across the country are exploring cost-effective ways to increase workplace efficiency. ... Despite this type of technology not quite making its way into our state yet, I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes a standard business practice statewide within the next few years. ...We should absolutely take every step possible to get ahead of these devices. In sum, while it was true that the Michigan House approved legislation governing the use of microchips, it was false to claim that the bill itself would allow employers to inject the devices - that practice was not prohibited by existing law and the in-question legislation would not suddenly permit it. Rather, the Microchip Protection Act established protections for employees who do not want to use the technology at work. For those reasons, we rate the claim 'Mostly False.'

In sum, while it was true that the Michigan House approved legislation governing the use of microchips, it was false to claim that the bill itself would allow employers to inject the devices - that practice was not prohibited by existing law and the in-question legislation would not suddenly permit it. Rather, the Microchip Protection Act established protections for employees who do not want to use the technology at work. For those reasons, we rate the claim 'Mostly False.'

In June 2020, the Michigan House of Representatives passed legislation that would allow employers to microchip workers on a voluntary basis.

Contradiction

On June 24, 2020, the Michigan House of Representatives approved the 'Microchip Protection Act' - a three-page piece of legislation that establishes guidelines for how businesses can use microchips implanted under people's skin in their workflows. Some onlookers interpreted the vote as lawmakers' endorsement of the use of tiny implant devices on humans - a relatively rare practice in the U.S. - and alleged online that the bill was part of some nefarious scheme by the Michigan government against citizens. Introduced by Republican State Rep. Bronna Kahle, the proposal was pending final approval from the state Senate and Gov. Gretchen Whitmer as of this writing. In the weeks that followed the House's decision, the website Great Game India (which was a major player in spreading misinformation about the origins of the coronavirus that causes COVID-19 and falsely claimed billionaire Bill Gates and the ID2020 Coalition was behind a grand surveillance plan to microchip the global population) published on July 4, 2020, for example: The Michigan House of Representatives has passed a controversial bill to microchip humans voluntarily in the state under the guise of protecting their privacy. The Microchip Protection Act would allow Michigan employers to use microchipping of their workers with their consent. However, research has shown that [radio frequency identification] RFID transponders causes cancer. Adding to that unsubstantiated concern regarding citizens' health, a viral web page by a Michigan-based blogger alleged that the legislation posed a threat to citizens' privacy and civil rights. He wrote: The bill verbage [sic] blocks employers from requiring microchips, but also creates a legitimacy for employers considering using the technology in the first place... If everyone is walking around with a unique identifier, privacy is out the window. ...This means anyone could track you. Stores could track your entry and exit, showing you targeted ads. Thieves could be signaled when you leave your home. Your movements and contacts could be used against you in any number of ways, including identity theft. Numerous readers reached out to Snopes in July 2020 to investigate the legitimacy of the social media and blog posts regarding the Michigan proposal. And upon our analysis of the postings, we deemed the underlying assertion to be this: The Michigan House passed legislation that would allow employers to microchip workers on a voluntary basis. To fully explore that claim, here's important context: Only a few U.S.-based companies had publicized the use of radio-frequency identification tags (RFID), or microchips, in their workplace at the time of the Michigan House's vote, and none of them were believed to be in the state, according to Kahle. The technology trend among U.S businesses seemed to have emerged after Sweden office complex Epicenter began offering RFID microchip implants to employees in 2015 (we explain more below). So to recap the facts, yes, the Michigan House approved a bill governing the use of microchips with a landslide vote, 104-2 (see the bill's legislative actions here), affirming the former aspect of the above-mentioned claim. Less simple, however, is the explanation for what the measure aimed to accomplish. To unpack that part of critics' assertion, we reviewed the specifics of the Microchip Protection Act, House Bill No. 5672, which can be read in a PDF format here. The bill comprises five sections, as well as an introduction that describes the act's purpose as this: In other words, the legislation would give workers or potential hires the legal grounds to sue bosses who make human microchips of any kind mandatory for employment. The bill would also establish protections for workers who do not want to use the technology and feel that their employers treated them differently compared to their pro-microchip coworkers. The first two sections of the bill define terms under which those provisions apply: any situation when technology is implanted, injected, inhaled 'or otherwise incorporat[ed] ... into the employee's or prospective employee's body.' Then, in the third provision, the legislation includes the following language: An employer may, as a condition of employment, as a condition of employment in a particular position, or as a condition of receiving additional compensation or other benefits, require an employee or prospective employee to comply with a court order that directs the employee or prospective employee to [have a microchip implanted]. That would mean if a judge for whatever reason ruled that a Michigan citizen must use a microchip (the technology could serve as a tool for probation or parole officials to track someone who is serving a criminal sentence, for instance) an employer of that individual could require him/her/them to use the device at work. The fourth section of the bill goes on to explain under what circumstances those affected employees or the court system could seek damages when or if employers violate the exception to the measure prohibiting mandatory microchipping. In reference to the above-mentioned claim, however, the final part of the legislation is key: 'This act does not limit an employee's or prospective employee's rights or remedies under any other state or federal law,' which include laws protecting the privacy and confidentiality of citizens. Any notion that the measure would establish a legal framework for Michigan employers to microchip people against their will is completely false. And here's the fundamental misconception among people who raised concerns over the Michigan proposal: Even without the legislation, anyone in the state can already voluntarily implant themselves with the device or offer the technology to employees. Wisconsin company Three Square Market, which specializes in vending machines and self-service software for offices, was the first widely known U.S. company to offer the devices to workers, in July 2017. There, employees can voluntarily get the devices implanted into their hands or use a wristband with the same RFID microchip to make purchases in the company's break room and use office equipment, among other things. The microchips use the same near-field communication technology utilized by contactless payment systems such as Apple Pay. In early 2020, Ifeoma Ajunwa, a Cornell University labor and employment law professor who studies the use of workplace technology, told MarketWatch there are likely more American businesses that use the technology, 'but they are probably not advertising it.' So as the technology becomes more prevalent, states are enacting new laws to regulate it. As of early 2020, more than a dozen states were either considering legislation like the Michigan bill that pertains specifically to workers' rights or were mulling more broad rules to govern the technology, or they had already passed such laws, according to analysis of state statutes on microchipping by the National Conference of State Legislatures and LexisNexis, a database of legal research. Among that minority group of U.S. states was Indiana, for instance, which established a law that took effect July 1, 2020. 'Microchipping is on the rise, and Hoosiers need to be aware of their rights,' said the legislation's author, Republican Rep. Alan Morrison, before the bill had passed. 'It is crucial to take the necessary steps now to ensure more safety and privacy in the future.' Similarly, Kahle, the sponsor of the Michigan proposal, said even though the practice was relatively rare as of mid-2020, she was attempting to prepare her state for a future when and if the technology is more popular. She said in a June 24, 2020, statement: With the way technology has increased over the years and as it continues to grow, it's important Michigan job providers balance the interests of the company with their employees' expectations of privacy. ...Microchipping has been brought up in many conversations as companies across the country are exploring cost-effective ways to increase workplace efficiency. ... Despite this type of technology not quite making its way into our state yet, I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes a standard business practice statewide within the next few years. ...We should absolutely take every step possible to get ahead of these devices. In sum, while it was true that the Michigan House approved legislation governing the use of microchips, it was false to claim that the bill itself would allow employers to inject the devices - that practice was not prohibited by existing law and the in-question legislation would not suddenly permit it. Rather, the Microchip Protection Act established protections for employees who do not want to use the technology at work. For those reasons, we rate the claim 'Mostly False.'

In sum, while it was true that the Michigan House approved legislation governing the use of microchips, it was false to claim that the bill itself would allow employers to inject the devices - that practice was not prohibited by existing law and the in-question legislation would not suddenly permit it. Rather, the Microchip Protection Act established protections for employees who do not want to use the technology at work. For those reasons, we rate the claim 'Mostly False.'

In June 2020, the Michigan House of Representatives passed legislation that would allow employers to microchip workers on a voluntary basis.

Contradiction

On June 24, 2020, the Michigan House of Representatives approved the 'Microchip Protection Act' - a three-page piece of legislation that establishes guidelines for how businesses can use microchips implanted under people's skin in their workflows. Some onlookers interpreted the vote as lawmakers' endorsement of the use of tiny implant devices on humans - a relatively rare practice in the U.S. - and alleged online that the bill was part of some nefarious scheme by the Michigan government against citizens. Introduced by Republican State Rep. Bronna Kahle, the proposal was pending final approval from the state Senate and Gov. Gretchen Whitmer as of this writing. In the weeks that followed the House's decision, the website Great Game India (which was a major player in spreading misinformation about the origins of the coronavirus that causes COVID-19 and falsely claimed billionaire Bill Gates and the ID2020 Coalition was behind a grand surveillance plan to microchip the global population) published on July 4, 2020, for example: The Michigan House of Representatives has passed a controversial bill to microchip humans voluntarily in the state under the guise of protecting their privacy. The Microchip Protection Act would allow Michigan employers to use microchipping of their workers with their consent. However, research has shown that [radio frequency identification] RFID transponders causes cancer. Adding to that unsubstantiated concern regarding citizens' health, a viral web page by a Michigan-based blogger alleged that the legislation posed a threat to citizens' privacy and civil rights. He wrote: The bill verbage [sic] blocks employers from requiring microchips, but also creates a legitimacy for employers considering using the technology in the first place... If everyone is walking around with a unique identifier, privacy is out the window. ...This means anyone could track you. Stores could track your entry and exit, showing you targeted ads. Thieves could be signaled when you leave your home. Your movements and contacts could be used against you in any number of ways, including identity theft. Numerous readers reached out to Snopes in July 2020 to investigate the legitimacy of the social media and blog posts regarding the Michigan proposal. And upon our analysis of the postings, we deemed the underlying assertion to be this: The Michigan House passed legislation that would allow employers to microchip workers on a voluntary basis. To fully explore that claim, here's important context: Only a few U.S.-based companies had publicized the use of radio-frequency identification tags (RFID), or microchips, in their workplace at the time of the Michigan House's vote, and none of them were believed to be in the state, according to Kahle. The technology trend among U.S businesses seemed to have emerged after Sweden office complex Epicenter began offering RFID microchip implants to employees in 2015 (we explain more below). So to recap the facts, yes, the Michigan House approved a bill governing the use of microchips with a landslide vote, 104-2 (see the bill's legislative actions here), affirming the former aspect of the above-mentioned claim. Less simple, however, is the explanation for what the measure aimed to accomplish. To unpack that part of critics' assertion, we reviewed the specifics of the Microchip Protection Act, House Bill No. 5672, which can be read in a PDF format here. The bill comprises five sections, as well as an introduction that describes the act's purpose as this: In other words, the legislation would give workers or potential hires the legal grounds to sue bosses who make human microchips of any kind mandatory for employment. The bill would also establish protections for workers who do not want to use the technology and feel that their employers treated them differently compared to their pro-microchip coworkers. The first two sections of the bill define terms under which those provisions apply: any situation when technology is implanted, injected, inhaled 'or otherwise incorporat[ed] ... into the employee's or prospective employee's body.' Then, in the third provision, the legislation includes the following language: An employer may, as a condition of employment, as a condition of employment in a particular position, or as a condition of receiving additional compensation or other benefits, require an employee or prospective employee to comply with a court order that directs the employee or prospective employee to [have a microchip implanted]. That would mean if a judge for whatever reason ruled that a Michigan citizen must use a microchip (the technology could serve as a tool for probation or parole officials to track someone who is serving a criminal sentence, for instance) an employer of that individual could require him/her/them to use the device at work. The fourth section of the bill goes on to explain under what circumstances those affected employees or the court system could seek damages when or if employers violate the exception to the measure prohibiting mandatory microchipping. In reference to the above-mentioned claim, however, the final part of the legislation is key: 'This act does not limit an employee's or prospective employee's rights or remedies under any other state or federal law,' which include laws protecting the privacy and confidentiality of citizens. Any notion that the measure would establish a legal framework for Michigan employers to microchip people against their will is completely false. And here's the fundamental misconception among people who raised concerns over the Michigan proposal: Even without the legislation, anyone in the state can already voluntarily implant themselves with the device or offer the technology to employees. Wisconsin company Three Square Market, which specializes in vending machines and self-service software for offices, was the first widely known U.S. company to offer the devices to workers, in July 2017. There, employees can voluntarily get the devices implanted into their hands or use a wristband with the same RFID microchip to make purchases in the company's break room and use office equipment, among other things. The microchips use the same near-field communication technology utilized by contactless payment systems such as Apple Pay. In early 2020, Ifeoma Ajunwa, a Cornell University labor and employment law professor who studies the use of workplace technology, told MarketWatch there are likely more American businesses that use the technology, 'but they are probably not advertising it.' So as the technology becomes more prevalent, states are enacting new laws to regulate it. As of early 2020, more than a dozen states were either considering legislation like the Michigan bill that pertains specifically to workers' rights or were mulling more broad rules to govern the technology, or they had already passed such laws, according to analysis of state statutes on microchipping by the National Conference of State Legislatures and LexisNexis, a database of legal research. Among that minority group of U.S. states was Indiana, for instance, which established a law that took effect July 1, 2020. 'Microchipping is on the rise, and Hoosiers need to be aware of their rights,' said the legislation's author, Republican Rep. Alan Morrison, before the bill had passed. 'It is crucial to take the necessary steps now to ensure more safety and privacy in the future.' Similarly, Kahle, the sponsor of the Michigan proposal, said even though the practice was relatively rare as of mid-2020, she was attempting to prepare her state for a future when and if the technology is more popular. She said in a June 24, 2020, statement: With the way technology has increased over the years and as it continues to grow, it's important Michigan job providers balance the interests of the company with their employees' expectations of privacy. ...Microchipping has been brought up in many conversations as companies across the country are exploring cost-effective ways to increase workplace efficiency. ... Despite this type of technology not quite making its way into our state yet, I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes a standard business practice statewide within the next few years. ...We should absolutely take every step possible to get ahead of these devices. In sum, while it was true that the Michigan House approved legislation governing the use of microchips, it was false to claim that the bill itself would allow employers to inject the devices - that practice was not prohibited by existing law and the in-question legislation would not suddenly permit it. Rather, the Microchip Protection Act established protections for employees who do not want to use the technology at work. For those reasons, we rate the claim 'Mostly False.'

In sum, while it was true that the Michigan House approved legislation governing the use of microchips, it was false to claim that the bill itself would allow employers to inject the devices - that practice was not prohibited by existing law and the in-question legislation would not suddenly permit it. Rather, the Microchip Protection Act established protections for employees who do not want to use the technology at work. For those reasons, we rate the claim 'Mostly False.'

The United Nations removed the birthplace of Jesus from its list of World Heritage Sites.

Contradiction

In April 2021, a supposed screenshot of an article entitled 'UN Cultural Agency Removes Birthplace of Jesus From Its List of Heritage Sites' circulated on social media: This was not a genuine news headline. This image was digitally altered to remove the final two words of a real headline published by the United Nations (U.N.). The real headline read: 'UN cultural agency removes birthplace of Jesus from its list of heritage sites in danger.' If you look closely at the above-displayed screenshot, you can see what appears to be faint marks of a Microsoft Paint tool over where the words 'in danger' would have been displayed. Here's a screenshot of the genuine headline: Omitting the words 'in danger' significantly changed the meaning of the headline. Although the social media post claimed that the U.N. was removing the birthplace from its heritage site list, the U.N. was actually reporting that the site of Jesus' birthplace had been restored and was no longer considered to be in danger of falling into disrepair. The U.N. wrote: The United Nations' cultural agency announced on Tuesday that it was removing the place that is officially recognized as the Birthplace of Jesus, from its List of World Heritage in Danger - crediting extensive restorative work on Bethlehem's Nativity Church, in Palestine. The gospels of the New Testament of the Bible state that Christ was born in a manger in Bethlehem, in the reign of King Herod, to Mary and Joseph. The nativity is the basis for the Christian festival of Christmas. Meeting in Baku, Azerbaijan, the World Heritage Committee made its decision based on the high quality of work carried out on the church in recent years, including the restoration of its roof, exterior facades, mosaics and doors. [...] The 54 properties on the List of World Heritage in Danger aim to alert the international community to threats to essential characteristics for which a property was initially inscribed on the World Heritage List. These can include armed conflicts, natural disasters, unplanned urbanization, poaching or pollution. In short, the birthplace of Jesus is still listed on the United Nations' list of World Heritage Sites. See it for yourself here. In April 2021, the U.N. announced that this site was no longer considered to be 'in danger' of falling into disrepair. After the U.N. made this announcement, someone digitally edited the U.N.'s headline to remove the words 'in danger' and shared it on social media, falsely claiming that this location was no longer considered a World Heritage Site.

In short, the birthplace of Jesus is still listed on the United Nations' list of World Heritage Sites. See it for yourself here. In April 2021, the U.N. announced that this site was no longer considered to be 'in danger' of falling into disrepair. After the U.N. made this announcement, someone digitally edited the U.N.'s headline to remove the words 'in danger' and shared it on social media, falsely claiming that this location was no longer considered a World Heritage Site.

A scientific study proved there is a causal link between a COVID-19 vaccine and herpes.

Contradiction

Snopes is still fighting an 'infodemic' of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and 'advice' you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease. As global COVID-19 vaccination campaigns pressed on in April 2021, new information and data continued to be gathered about the safety and efficacy of the various vaccines. During this time, an observational study published on April 12, 2021, in the British Society for Rheumatology scientific journal Rheumatology described a possible link between the COVID-19 vaccine and a herpes outbreak. Some news publications at the time ran with the claim, publishing headlines that did not specify the type of herpes linked to the COVID-19 vaccine, and even implied that the vaccine may cause herpes. 2019: Herpes linked to Coachella 2021: Herpes linked to Covid-19 Vaccine 🤣 https://t.co/MDt2PJpuJB - Xavier G (@xgmarksthespot) April 20, 2021 There are many nuances to explore with this claim. First and foremost, an observational study based on six case reports that wasn't designed to determine a causal relationship described a handful of rare herpes zoster (shingles) outbreaks after the individuals received their Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine. Researchers said it is too early to confirm a causal link and stated that such an outbreak could be the result of a previous infection that was spurred by an immune response. We dove through the case reports line-by-line. Here's what we found. A Mass Vaccination Effort in Israel The observations in question took place in Israel, which launched a nationwide mass vaccination campaign in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. As of March 1, more than half of the population had been vaccinated with both doses - with immunosuppressed individuals prioritized for 'urgent vaccination.' But as the authors of the case reports stated, data was not available on the safety of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases (AIIRD) patients, as immunosuppressed patients were excluded from the vaccines' clinical trials. 'Therefore, safety monitoring and surveillance of vaccinated patients is especially warranted in this population,' wrote the report authors. AIIRD is a group of diseases that are characterized by abnormal immune responses. Patients diagnosed with AIIRD have a compromised immune system and are at an increased risk of infection. Though experts generally recommend that the benefit of vaccines outweighs potential risks, some vaccines have been reported to induce autoimmune reactions, and in some instances, vaccines can trigger a response and increase the activity of the underlying autoimmune disease, according to a 2014 review published in the journal Nature. To determine how safe mRNA-based vaccines like Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech were for individuals with AIIRD, researchers at the Rheumatology Departments of the Tel Aviv Medical Center monitored potential adverse effects of people in Israel who had received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine within the first six weeks following their vaccination. Of all those monitored, six women with AIIRD - 1.2% of the group - developed their first episode of herpes zoster (shingles) 'closely after vaccination.' The Case Reports Herpes zoster, also known as shingles, is caused by the reactivation of the varicella-zoster virus, the same virus that causes varicella, or chickenpox, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. As is often the case, once chickenpox resolves, the virus remains latent in the human body until a later reactivation in the form of shingles. Primary infection with VZV causes varicella. In other words, a 'reactivation' of herpes zoster means that the virus, which was already dormant in the body, was spurred into an outbreak. In all six cases of shingles outbreaks documented in the case report, each woman had experienced chickenpox as a child. All women were between the ages of 36 and 61 years old and their symptoms resolved without further incident between several days and three weeks. Interestingly, just one woman had been vaccinated for shingles. All but one opted to receive their second dose of the vaccine and of those who did, none experienced further adverse effects after having done so. (The case studies can be viewed in greater detail here.) Though the findings suggest a possible link between the shingles outbreaks and the COVID-19 vaccine, the report authors are quick to warn about a 'number of limitations' with their research. 'First, the study design is not structured to determine a causal relationship between vaccination and herpes zoster, as non-vaccinated patients with AIIRD were not included in the study,' wrote the authors. 'Second, HZ diagnosis was based solely on clinical grounds, without histologic or molecular confirmation.' Although the case reports are published in a reputable, peer-reviewed journal, it is important to understand the difference between a study based on a 'case series' such as this one and an experimental study. A case report is more like a narrative that describes a particular event or occurrence, usually containing information about the issue and how researchers or doctors addressed it. Case reports do not independently verify a link or causation through the scientific method but the information contained within is often used to inform, systematically plan, and investigate future studies based on empirical and measurable evidence. James Heilman/Public Domain The Likely Underlying Culprit Vaccines work by eliciting an immune response. Currently, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) notes that there are three main types of vaccines available in the U.S., protein subunit vaccines, vector vaccines like the Johnson and Johnson, and the two-dose mRNA vaccines such as Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech, which contain genetic material from the virus to give cells instructions on how to make antibodies to fight future infection. A viral infection like shingles, on the other hand, occurs when the virus is activated. There have been other case reports of people who have experienced flare-ups of herpes infection after receiving a vaccine, like a 57-year-old woman who developed HSV-2 (genital herpes) reactivation after receiving her influenza vaccine in 2017. And herpes reactivation has been reported following other vaccines like influenza, hepatitis A, and rabies. Though the case reports suggest that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines like Pfizer-BioNTech 'might provoke reactivation of herpes zoster in patients with AIIRD,' it is inaccurate to imply that the vaccine caused the infection. Rather, it is more likely that the viral reactions described in the report were the result of a previous infection that was spurred by an immune response to the vaccine, particularly when herpes is generally considered an asymptomatic condition that is only diagnosable when an outbreak is occurring. Vaccines aside, those with autoimmune disorders are also more likely to develop shingles at some point in their life, and those with rheumatoid arthritis are two-fold compared to healthy populations in the same age group. What's Next? To sum it up, the case reports do not confirm that individuals should avoid the COVID-19 vaccine for fear of developing shingles, but rather suggests that the matter warrants further investigation by researchers. 'In summary, the presented cases raise awareness to a potential causal link between COVID-19 vaccination as a trigger of HZ reactivation in relatively young patients with stable AIIRD,' concluded the authors. 'While the causality between both events cannot be proved based on a small number of cases, further vigilance and safety monitoring of COVID-19 vaccination side effects is warranted.'

In summary, the presented cases raise awareness to a potential causal link between COVID-19 vaccination as a trigger of HZ reactivation in relatively young patients with stable AIIRD,' concluded the authors. 'While the causality between both events cannot be proved based on a small number of cases, further vigilance and safety monitoring of COVID-19 vaccination side effects is warranted.'

A TikTok video promotion gives away iPhone 12s for free to random users.

Contradiction

On March 5, 2021, a new TikTok video claimed to offer free iPhones in a special giveaway. It tallied nearly 2 million comments in under four hours and was posted by @amandatuckercom. The 8-second video told viewers: 'Hey. Today's your lucky day. You've been randomly selected to win a brand new iPhone 12. Click the link in the bio to enter.' @amandatuckercom ♬ original sound - Amanda R. Tucker This was not a legitimate iPhone giveaway. These kinds of scams can potentially involve phishing and identity theft. Readers are strongly advised to stay away from and report these purported giveaways. TikTok users can be easily reported on on a mobile phone. Simply visit a bio and tap the three dots in the upper right corner. Then tap 'Report' in the bottom left corner. Readers who clicked the link in @amandatuckercom's bio were led to this page: The page design was sleek, likely leading some viewers to think it was legitimate. Needless to say, this was not an official Apple website. We researched the domain name for more information and learned that it was registered from Kuwait on March 1, 2021. The process then let TikTok users choose a model, color, and storage size: One of three iPhone models could be selected. A color could be chosen. Storage capacity was the final customization option. The next step signaled to TikTok entrants that they had succeeded in claiming their iPhone 12: On this page, it claimed that the process was complete. It wasn't. We won't go too much into detail, but things went off the rails after that 'success' in the giveaway. For example, next, there was a purported chance to win a PlayStation 5. The website asked for personal information such as a phone number, date of birth, mailing address, and email address. Some or all of the process appeared to be affiliated with a company named RewardZone USA, LLC. It was unclear if the TikTok user was directly affiliated with the company. The entire ruse also involved telemarketers. In a later step, a page appeared that asked for consent to receive sales calls and text messages. It then listed the following 'marketing partners' that may place calls to entrants: Accuquote, CAC, DealFinder, DebtExpert, EarnMore, HealthNow, Instant Save, InstantPlaySweepstakes, NationalConsumerCenter, SamplesandSavings, SaveToday, StartaCareerToday.com, SurveyVoices, Sweepstakes Entry Center, SweepstakesaDay, SweepstakesaMonth, WinningToday, and Winopoly. In sum, the iPhone giveaway on TikTok was not real. Stay far away from any iPhone or PlayStation giveaways unless they appear on official sites because the majority of them are not real. Further, always protect your personal information. For further reading, see other recent frauds and scams.

In sum, the iPhone giveaway on TikTok was not real. Stay far away from any iPhone or PlayStation giveaways unless they appear on official sites because the majority of them are not real. Further, always protect your personal information. For further reading, see other recent frauds and scams.

A photograph shows an Immigrant who crossed the United States' southern border with a case of smallpox.

Contradiction

As political rhetoric about the dangers of immigration grew to a 'Full Trumpism' fever pitch in the run-up to the 2018 U.S. midterm elections, several online meme-makers and anti-immigration pundits ratcheted up speculation about the potential health risks posed by immigration across the southern U.S. border. Such claims were usually heavily speculative 'what if' statements, tended to be light on factual analysis or good-faith arguments, and were usually attached to misleading or unrelated photos in an effort to generate fear. 'What about diseases?' Brian Kilmeade opined in a 29 October 2018 'Fox & Friends' segment about a Central American caravan, 'I mean, there's a reason you can't bring a kid to school unless he's inoculated.' Kilmeade did not provide any factual evidence to suggest an increased risk of disease from caravan members, nor did he indicate what kind of diseases were of concern. Pictures of Immigrants with Scabies Nearly all arguments or memes asserting a risk of disease from southern border crossing used photographs and news stories from a specific outbreak that occurred in that area during in the summer of 2014. A representative post of this ilk displayed a photograph and posited that 'the bumps on this illegal's body who was detained from the Caravan @ the Border is smallpox': The accompanying image showed a man with a case of scabies (a dermatologic condition caused by mites), not smallpox, however. The photograph used in this 2 November 2018 meme was taken by U.S. Rep. Henry Cuellar at a Customs and Border Protection facility in South Texas and was first published by the Houston Chronicle on 11 June 2014. That year saw the beginning of a large influx of Central Americans attempting to cross into the United States, an event attributed largely to increasing political unrest and poverty in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, and one which overwhelmed the existing U.S. immigration and border patrol capacities at the time. The 2014 scabies outbreak was heavily reported on by right-wing outlets such as Breitbart and the Washington Times. These outlets and many others uncritically repeated speculative fears presented in local news segments, and they continued to be cited to justify fears of disease from immigrants in 2018. It is therefore informative to look at the fears raised in these 2014 stories to see if they were justified. A 10 June 2014 article in the Washington Times raised concerns that diseases 'of an even more serious nature' than scabies could infect the United States (emphasis on speculative language ours): Border patrol agents who have already experienced scabies infestations from illegal border crossers now fear the thousands of children who are sweeping into the United States are bringing a host of new diseases and ailments - of even more serious nature. 'We are starting to see chicken pox, MRSA staph infections; we are starting to see different viruses,' said Rio Grande Valley Border Patrol agent Chris Cabrera said, ABC 15 reported ... Mr. Cabrera warned that diseases brought across the border could easily spread to other parts of the country. 'It's contagious. We are transporting people to different parts of the state and different parts of the country,' he said, ABC15 reported. Breitbart's coverage from 27 May 2014 raised similar fears about a spread of disease to American children, going so far as to cite a 'human stash house' mechanism from a local news segment (emphasis on speculative language ours): Overcrowding has made it difficult to identify and quarantine infected detainees. Many are concerned that scabies and other illnesses may be passed onto the general public. Hidalgo County Health Department director Eddie Olivarez told Action 4 News that many illegal immigrants are likely contracting scabies in human stash houses, as they make their journey into the U.S. 'The situation is that probably in the stash houses on the Mexican side or even on the U.S. side those stash houses are probably infected with this particular illness,' he said. Each of these reports made a testable prediction: cases of scabies, chicken pox, MRSA, or staph infections brought to America by the surge of immigrants from Central America that began in 2014 would spread to American children in an epidemiologically significant way. The Center for Immigration Studies suggested that the scabies outbreak specifically could present 'a health crisis of significant proportion.' Since the publication of those stories in 2014, no large-scale outbreaks of scabies, chicken pox, MRSA, or staph infections credibly attributable to the transfer of disease from immigrants to the surrounding community have occurred. In the case of the scabies outbreak along the border in 2014, cases of non-detainees contracting the disease appear to have been limited to a few agents, as reported by the National Review: Approximately 40 immigrants in detention at one center in the U.S. Customs and Border Protection's San Diego Sector have active cases of scabies, a source tells National Review Online. ... Two agents at the Brown Field Border Patrol Station developed rashes on July 3 after processing illegal immigrants from Texas, according to a letter obtained by NRO written by Ron Zermeno, health and safety director of National Border Patrol Council Local 1613. Scabies, a treatable skin infection caused by microscopic mites, remains a significant risk for detained populations living in close quarters, or for populations of people in developing countries with poorer sanitation facilities, but it is not considered at significant risk for the American populace and is easily treatable with proper medical care. Do Refugees Present a Significant Health Risk to the Communities They Enter? The broader question of how refugee populations affect the overall health of the communities they enter is one that merits investigation. The viral Facebook post referenced above makes mention of several diseases, but many of those diseases are commonly present primarily in refugee populations. A 2017 literature review of infectious disease in refugee and asylum seekers in Europe found that the most common maladies for these populations were tuberculosis and hepatitis B. That same study noted, however, that 'though we see high transmission in the refugee populations, there is very little risk of spread to the autochthonous population.' In other words, these diseases spread fast amongst the refugee populations, but not among the communities they enter. A 2017 report for the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute authored by medical geographer Eric Carter made this point in broader detail. That report stated that the number of Americans or other foreigners who travel to the countries from which refugees are fleeing far exceeds the number of people entering the country as refugees. Therefore, the number of people exposed to foreign disease from Americans returning from refugee countries likely exceeds those exposed to disease from actual refugees: Tightening border controls usually does little to stem the spread of infectious diseases, partly as a result of the inherent dynamics of how epidemics unfold across space and time. Moreover, the sheer volume of people traveling internationally overwhelms attempts to single out immigrants or foreign nationals for heightened scrutiny at airports and other ports of entry. As an example, that report cited concerns that immigrants from Central American countries were bringing Zika (one of the diseases attributed to immigrants in the 2018 immigration memes) to the United States in 2015. While pundits attempted to blame illegal immigration for Zika cases in the United States, the numbers do not support such a conclusion: Even as some politicians and pundits suggest that immigrants are greater carriers of disease, there is no evidence to suggest that their rates of infectious disease exceed those of travelers generally. And migrants make up a small proportion of international travelers. For example, the annual number of U.S. travelers to areas where Zika transmission occurs - about 40 million, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) - dwarfs the number of migrants from those regions ... It appears thus far that the vast majority of Zika cases in the continental United States come from American travelers who acquired the infection while abroad, not from immigrants to the country. In 2016, 185 million legal northbound crossings took place at ports of entry along the 2,000-mile border between the United States and Mexico. By comparison, the number of migrants in the latest caravan (2018) is in the thousands. Another relevant point is that many of the maladies listed in anti-immigration memes concern diseases that are all but eradicated in the United States thanks to vaccination efforts. Polio, for example, has been considered eradicated from the entire American continent since 1994. In fact, many of the countries in Central America from which the migrants are attempting to flee have higher vaccination rates for diseases such as measles than the United States does. In 2017, 92% of children aged 12-23 months were vaccinated for measles in the United States. In Mexico and Honduras that figure was higher, at 96% and 97% respectively. El Salvador and Guatemala have seen a recent decline in vaccination rates, with 85% and 86% coverage in 2017. Regardless, the notion that these commonly vaccinated conditions are in wide circulation outside of the United States and therefore present in higher levels in border-crossing immigrants is dubious. A measles outbreak in an Arizona immigration detention facility occurred in 2016, infecting both staff and detainees, but it did not spread to the general public. Its peril to the U.S. staff stemmed primarily from a lack of vaccination on the part of the staff working there. Rush Limbaugh attempted to blame a different measles outbreak at Disneyland in 2015 on illegal immigration, but that outbreak was exacerbated not by illegal immigration but by lower than average vaccination rates in Southern California. While the CDC does suggest some risk of communicable disease transmission across the southern border, they do not attribute it to illegal immigration, but rather to the high level of transportation across the border in general: The large movement of people across the United States and Mexico border has led to an increase in health issues, particularly infectious diseases such as tuberculosis. Besides the millions of travelers who cross the U.S.-Mexico border each year, the border region also has a population of approximately 11 million people, many of whom cross the border daily for a variety of reasons. More than 30% of U.S. border families are living at or below poverty level, and they are at risk of foodborne, waterborne, and infectious diseases that, for the most part, can be prevented by vaccines. In short, while detained populations of people held in close quarters carry a higher risk for the transmission of communicable diseases such as scabies or tuberculosis within that population, no evidence suggests that those populations pose a health risk to the surrounding communities. Efforts on the internet to make that risk appear acute do so by misrepresenting out-of-date figures and by ignoring the epidemiological realities of a world that sees one billion people cross international borders every year.

In short, while detained populations of people held in close quarters carry a higher risk for the transmission of communicable diseases such as scabies or tuberculosis within that population, no evidence suggests that those populations pose a health risk to the surrounding communities. Efforts on the internet to make that risk appear acute do so by misrepresenting out-of-date figures and by ignoring the epidemiological realities of a world that sees one billion people cross international borders every year.

A photograph shows an Immigrant who crossed the United States' southern border with a case of smallpox.

Contradiction

As political rhetoric about the dangers of immigration grew to a 'Full Trumpism' fever pitch in the run-up to the 2018 U.S. midterm elections, several online meme-makers and anti-immigration pundits ratcheted up speculation about the potential health risks posed by immigration across the southern U.S. border. Such claims were usually heavily speculative 'what if' statements, tended to be light on factual analysis or good-faith arguments, and were usually attached to misleading or unrelated photos in an effort to generate fear. 'What about diseases?' Brian Kilmeade opined in a 29 October 2018 'Fox & Friends' segment about a Central American caravan, 'I mean, there's a reason you can't bring a kid to school unless he's inoculated.' Kilmeade did not provide any factual evidence to suggest an increased risk of disease from caravan members, nor did he indicate what kind of diseases were of concern. Pictures of Immigrants with Scabies Nearly all arguments or memes asserting a risk of disease from southern border crossing used photographs and news stories from a specific outbreak that occurred in that area during in the summer of 2014. A representative post of this ilk displayed a photograph and posited that 'the bumps on this illegal's body who was detained from the Caravan @ the Border is smallpox': The accompanying image showed a man with a case of scabies (a dermatologic condition caused by mites), not smallpox, however. The photograph used in this 2 November 2018 meme was taken by U.S. Rep. Henry Cuellar at a Customs and Border Protection facility in South Texas and was first published by the Houston Chronicle on 11 June 2014. That year saw the beginning of a large influx of Central Americans attempting to cross into the United States, an event attributed largely to increasing political unrest and poverty in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, and one which overwhelmed the existing U.S. immigration and border patrol capacities at the time. The 2014 scabies outbreak was heavily reported on by right-wing outlets such as Breitbart and the Washington Times. These outlets and many others uncritically repeated speculative fears presented in local news segments, and they continued to be cited to justify fears of disease from immigrants in 2018. It is therefore informative to look at the fears raised in these 2014 stories to see if they were justified. A 10 June 2014 article in the Washington Times raised concerns that diseases 'of an even more serious nature' than scabies could infect the United States (emphasis on speculative language ours): Border patrol agents who have already experienced scabies infestations from illegal border crossers now fear the thousands of children who are sweeping into the United States are bringing a host of new diseases and ailments - of even more serious nature. 'We are starting to see chicken pox, MRSA staph infections; we are starting to see different viruses,' said Rio Grande Valley Border Patrol agent Chris Cabrera said, ABC 15 reported ... Mr. Cabrera warned that diseases brought across the border could easily spread to other parts of the country. 'It's contagious. We are transporting people to different parts of the state and different parts of the country,' he said, ABC15 reported. Breitbart's coverage from 27 May 2014 raised similar fears about a spread of disease to American children, going so far as to cite a 'human stash house' mechanism from a local news segment (emphasis on speculative language ours): Overcrowding has made it difficult to identify and quarantine infected detainees. Many are concerned that scabies and other illnesses may be passed onto the general public. Hidalgo County Health Department director Eddie Olivarez told Action 4 News that many illegal immigrants are likely contracting scabies in human stash houses, as they make their journey into the U.S. 'The situation is that probably in the stash houses on the Mexican side or even on the U.S. side those stash houses are probably infected with this particular illness,' he said. Each of these reports made a testable prediction: cases of scabies, chicken pox, MRSA, or staph infections brought to America by the surge of immigrants from Central America that began in 2014 would spread to American children in an epidemiologically significant way. The Center for Immigration Studies suggested that the scabies outbreak specifically could present 'a health crisis of significant proportion.' Since the publication of those stories in 2014, no large-scale outbreaks of scabies, chicken pox, MRSA, or staph infections credibly attributable to the transfer of disease from immigrants to the surrounding community have occurred. In the case of the scabies outbreak along the border in 2014, cases of non-detainees contracting the disease appear to have been limited to a few agents, as reported by the National Review: Approximately 40 immigrants in detention at one center in the U.S. Customs and Border Protection's San Diego Sector have active cases of scabies, a source tells National Review Online. ... Two agents at the Brown Field Border Patrol Station developed rashes on July 3 after processing illegal immigrants from Texas, according to a letter obtained by NRO written by Ron Zermeno, health and safety director of National Border Patrol Council Local 1613. Scabies, a treatable skin infection caused by microscopic mites, remains a significant risk for detained populations living in close quarters, or for populations of people in developing countries with poorer sanitation facilities, but it is not considered at significant risk for the American populace and is easily treatable with proper medical care. Do Refugees Present a Significant Health Risk to the Communities They Enter? The broader question of how refugee populations affect the overall health of the communities they enter is one that merits investigation. The viral Facebook post referenced above makes mention of several diseases, but many of those diseases are commonly present primarily in refugee populations. A 2017 literature review of infectious disease in refugee and asylum seekers in Europe found that the most common maladies for these populations were tuberculosis and hepatitis B. That same study noted, however, that 'though we see high transmission in the refugee populations, there is very little risk of spread to the autochthonous population.' In other words, these diseases spread fast amongst the refugee populations, but not among the communities they enter. A 2017 report for the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute authored by medical geographer Eric Carter made this point in broader detail. That report stated that the number of Americans or other foreigners who travel to the countries from which refugees are fleeing far exceeds the number of people entering the country as refugees. Therefore, the number of people exposed to foreign disease from Americans returning from refugee countries likely exceeds those exposed to disease from actual refugees: Tightening border controls usually does little to stem the spread of infectious diseases, partly as a result of the inherent dynamics of how epidemics unfold across space and time. Moreover, the sheer volume of people traveling internationally overwhelms attempts to single out immigrants or foreign nationals for heightened scrutiny at airports and other ports of entry. As an example, that report cited concerns that immigrants from Central American countries were bringing Zika (one of the diseases attributed to immigrants in the 2018 immigration memes) to the United States in 2015. While pundits attempted to blame illegal immigration for Zika cases in the United States, the numbers do not support such a conclusion: Even as some politicians and pundits suggest that immigrants are greater carriers of disease, there is no evidence to suggest that their rates of infectious disease exceed those of travelers generally. And migrants make up a small proportion of international travelers. For example, the annual number of U.S. travelers to areas where Zika transmission occurs - about 40 million, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) - dwarfs the number of migrants from those regions ... It appears thus far that the vast majority of Zika cases in the continental United States come from American travelers who acquired the infection while abroad, not from immigrants to the country. In 2016, 185 million legal northbound crossings took place at ports of entry along the 2,000-mile border between the United States and Mexico. By comparison, the number of migrants in the latest caravan (2018) is in the thousands. Another relevant point is that many of the maladies listed in anti-immigration memes concern diseases that are all but eradicated in the United States thanks to vaccination efforts. Polio, for example, has been considered eradicated from the entire American continent since 1994. In fact, many of the countries in Central America from which the migrants are attempting to flee have higher vaccination rates for diseases such as measles than the United States does. In 2017, 92% of children aged 12-23 months were vaccinated for measles in the United States. In Mexico and Honduras that figure was higher, at 96% and 97% respectively. El Salvador and Guatemala have seen a recent decline in vaccination rates, with 85% and 86% coverage in 2017. Regardless, the notion that these commonly vaccinated conditions are in wide circulation outside of the United States and therefore present in higher levels in border-crossing immigrants is dubious. A measles outbreak in an Arizona immigration detention facility occurred in 2016, infecting both staff and detainees, but it did not spread to the general public. Its peril to the U.S. staff stemmed primarily from a lack of vaccination on the part of the staff working there. Rush Limbaugh attempted to blame a different measles outbreak at Disneyland in 2015 on illegal immigration, but that outbreak was exacerbated not by illegal immigration but by lower than average vaccination rates in Southern California. While the CDC does suggest some risk of communicable disease transmission across the southern border, they do not attribute it to illegal immigration, but rather to the high level of transportation across the border in general: The large movement of people across the United States and Mexico border has led to an increase in health issues, particularly infectious diseases such as tuberculosis. Besides the millions of travelers who cross the U.S.-Mexico border each year, the border region also has a population of approximately 11 million people, many of whom cross the border daily for a variety of reasons. More than 30% of U.S. border families are living at or below poverty level, and they are at risk of foodborne, waterborne, and infectious diseases that, for the most part, can be prevented by vaccines. In short, while detained populations of people held in close quarters carry a higher risk for the transmission of communicable diseases such as scabies or tuberculosis within that population, no evidence suggests that those populations pose a health risk to the surrounding communities. Efforts on the internet to make that risk appear acute do so by misrepresenting out-of-date figures and by ignoring the epidemiological realities of a world that sees one billion people cross international borders every year.

In short, while detained populations of people held in close quarters carry a higher risk for the transmission of communicable diseases such as scabies or tuberculosis within that population, no evidence suggests that those populations pose a health risk to the surrounding communities. Efforts on the internet to make that risk appear acute do so by misrepresenting out-of-date figures and by ignoring the epidemiological realities of a world that sees one billion people cross international borders every year.

A photograph shows an Immigrant who crossed the United States' southern border with a case of smallpox.

Contradiction

As political rhetoric about the dangers of immigration grew to a 'Full Trumpism' fever pitch in the run-up to the 2018 U.S. midterm elections, several online meme-makers and anti-immigration pundits ratcheted up speculation about the potential health risks posed by immigration across the southern U.S. border. Such claims were usually heavily speculative 'what if' statements, tended to be light on factual analysis or good-faith arguments, and were usually attached to misleading or unrelated photos in an effort to generate fear. 'What about diseases?' Brian Kilmeade opined in a 29 October 2018 'Fox & Friends' segment about a Central American caravan, 'I mean, there's a reason you can't bring a kid to school unless he's inoculated.' Kilmeade did not provide any factual evidence to suggest an increased risk of disease from caravan members, nor did he indicate what kind of diseases were of concern. Pictures of Immigrants with Scabies Nearly all arguments or memes asserting a risk of disease from southern border crossing used photographs and news stories from a specific outbreak that occurred in that area during in the summer of 2014. A representative post of this ilk displayed a photograph and posited that 'the bumps on this illegal's body who was detained from the Caravan @ the Border is smallpox': The accompanying image showed a man with a case of scabies (a dermatologic condition caused by mites), not smallpox, however. The photograph used in this 2 November 2018 meme was taken by U.S. Rep. Henry Cuellar at a Customs and Border Protection facility in South Texas and was first published by the Houston Chronicle on 11 June 2014. That year saw the beginning of a large influx of Central Americans attempting to cross into the United States, an event attributed largely to increasing political unrest and poverty in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, and one which overwhelmed the existing U.S. immigration and border patrol capacities at the time. The 2014 scabies outbreak was heavily reported on by right-wing outlets such as Breitbart and the Washington Times. These outlets and many others uncritically repeated speculative fears presented in local news segments, and they continued to be cited to justify fears of disease from immigrants in 2018. It is therefore informative to look at the fears raised in these 2014 stories to see if they were justified. A 10 June 2014 article in the Washington Times raised concerns that diseases 'of an even more serious nature' than scabies could infect the United States (emphasis on speculative language ours): Border patrol agents who have already experienced scabies infestations from illegal border crossers now fear the thousands of children who are sweeping into the United States are bringing a host of new diseases and ailments - of even more serious nature. 'We are starting to see chicken pox, MRSA staph infections; we are starting to see different viruses,' said Rio Grande Valley Border Patrol agent Chris Cabrera said, ABC 15 reported ... Mr. Cabrera warned that diseases brought across the border could easily spread to other parts of the country. 'It's contagious. We are transporting people to different parts of the state and different parts of the country,' he said, ABC15 reported. Breitbart's coverage from 27 May 2014 raised similar fears about a spread of disease to American children, going so far as to cite a 'human stash house' mechanism from a local news segment (emphasis on speculative language ours): Overcrowding has made it difficult to identify and quarantine infected detainees. Many are concerned that scabies and other illnesses may be passed onto the general public. Hidalgo County Health Department director Eddie Olivarez told Action 4 News that many illegal immigrants are likely contracting scabies in human stash houses, as they make their journey into the U.S. 'The situation is that probably in the stash houses on the Mexican side or even on the U.S. side those stash houses are probably infected with this particular illness,' he said. Each of these reports made a testable prediction: cases of scabies, chicken pox, MRSA, or staph infections brought to America by the surge of immigrants from Central America that began in 2014 would spread to American children in an epidemiologically significant way. The Center for Immigration Studies suggested that the scabies outbreak specifically could present 'a health crisis of significant proportion.' Since the publication of those stories in 2014, no large-scale outbreaks of scabies, chicken pox, MRSA, or staph infections credibly attributable to the transfer of disease from immigrants to the surrounding community have occurred. In the case of the scabies outbreak along the border in 2014, cases of non-detainees contracting the disease appear to have been limited to a few agents, as reported by the National Review: Approximately 40 immigrants in detention at one center in the U.S. Customs and Border Protection's San Diego Sector have active cases of scabies, a source tells National Review Online. ... Two agents at the Brown Field Border Patrol Station developed rashes on July 3 after processing illegal immigrants from Texas, according to a letter obtained by NRO written by Ron Zermeno, health and safety director of National Border Patrol Council Local 1613. Scabies, a treatable skin infection caused by microscopic mites, remains a significant risk for detained populations living in close quarters, or for populations of people in developing countries with poorer sanitation facilities, but it is not considered at significant risk for the American populace and is easily treatable with proper medical care. Do Refugees Present a Significant Health Risk to the Communities They Enter? The broader question of how refugee populations affect the overall health of the communities they enter is one that merits investigation. The viral Facebook post referenced above makes mention of several diseases, but many of those diseases are commonly present primarily in refugee populations. A 2017 literature review of infectious disease in refugee and asylum seekers in Europe found that the most common maladies for these populations were tuberculosis and hepatitis B. That same study noted, however, that 'though we see high transmission in the refugee populations, there is very little risk of spread to the autochthonous population.' In other words, these diseases spread fast amongst the refugee populations, but not among the communities they enter. A 2017 report for the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute authored by medical geographer Eric Carter made this point in broader detail. That report stated that the number of Americans or other foreigners who travel to the countries from which refugees are fleeing far exceeds the number of people entering the country as refugees. Therefore, the number of people exposed to foreign disease from Americans returning from refugee countries likely exceeds those exposed to disease from actual refugees: Tightening border controls usually does little to stem the spread of infectious diseases, partly as a result of the inherent dynamics of how epidemics unfold across space and time. Moreover, the sheer volume of people traveling internationally overwhelms attempts to single out immigrants or foreign nationals for heightened scrutiny at airports and other ports of entry. As an example, that report cited concerns that immigrants from Central American countries were bringing Zika (one of the diseases attributed to immigrants in the 2018 immigration memes) to the United States in 2015. While pundits attempted to blame illegal immigration for Zika cases in the United States, the numbers do not support such a conclusion: Even as some politicians and pundits suggest that immigrants are greater carriers of disease, there is no evidence to suggest that their rates of infectious disease exceed those of travelers generally. And migrants make up a small proportion of international travelers. For example, the annual number of U.S. travelers to areas where Zika transmission occurs - about 40 million, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) - dwarfs the number of migrants from those regions ... It appears thus far that the vast majority of Zika cases in the continental United States come from American travelers who acquired the infection while abroad, not from immigrants to the country. In 2016, 185 million legal northbound crossings took place at ports of entry along the 2,000-mile border between the United States and Mexico. By comparison, the number of migrants in the latest caravan (2018) is in the thousands. Another relevant point is that many of the maladies listed in anti-immigration memes concern diseases that are all but eradicated in the United States thanks to vaccination efforts. Polio, for example, has been considered eradicated from the entire American continent since 1994. In fact, many of the countries in Central America from which the migrants are attempting to flee have higher vaccination rates for diseases such as measles than the United States does. In 2017, 92% of children aged 12-23 months were vaccinated for measles in the United States. In Mexico and Honduras that figure was higher, at 96% and 97% respectively. El Salvador and Guatemala have seen a recent decline in vaccination rates, with 85% and 86% coverage in 2017. Regardless, the notion that these commonly vaccinated conditions are in wide circulation outside of the United States and therefore present in higher levels in border-crossing immigrants is dubious. A measles outbreak in an Arizona immigration detention facility occurred in 2016, infecting both staff and detainees, but it did not spread to the general public. Its peril to the U.S. staff stemmed primarily from a lack of vaccination on the part of the staff working there. Rush Limbaugh attempted to blame a different measles outbreak at Disneyland in 2015 on illegal immigration, but that outbreak was exacerbated not by illegal immigration but by lower than average vaccination rates in Southern California. While the CDC does suggest some risk of communicable disease transmission across the southern border, they do not attribute it to illegal immigration, but rather to the high level of transportation across the border in general: The large movement of people across the United States and Mexico border has led to an increase in health issues, particularly infectious diseases such as tuberculosis. Besides the millions of travelers who cross the U.S.-Mexico border each year, the border region also has a population of approximately 11 million people, many of whom cross the border daily for a variety of reasons. More than 30% of U.S. border families are living at or below poverty level, and they are at risk of foodborne, waterborne, and infectious diseases that, for the most part, can be prevented by vaccines. In short, while detained populations of people held in close quarters carry a higher risk for the transmission of communicable diseases such as scabies or tuberculosis within that population, no evidence suggests that those populations pose a health risk to the surrounding communities. Efforts on the internet to make that risk appear acute do so by misrepresenting out-of-date figures and by ignoring the epidemiological realities of a world that sees one billion people cross international borders every year.

In short, while detained populations of people held in close quarters carry a higher risk for the transmission of communicable diseases such as scabies or tuberculosis within that population, no evidence suggests that those populations pose a health risk to the surrounding communities. Efforts on the internet to make that risk appear acute do so by misrepresenting out-of-date figures and by ignoring the epidemiological realities of a world that sees one billion people cross international borders every year.

A photograph shows an Immigrant who crossed the United States' southern border with a case of smallpox.

Contradiction

As political rhetoric about the dangers of immigration grew to a 'Full Trumpism' fever pitch in the run-up to the 2018 U.S. midterm elections, several online meme-makers and anti-immigration pundits ratcheted up speculation about the potential health risks posed by immigration across the southern U.S. border. Such claims were usually heavily speculative 'what if' statements, tended to be light on factual analysis or good-faith arguments, and were usually attached to misleading or unrelated photos in an effort to generate fear. 'What about diseases?' Brian Kilmeade opined in a 29 October 2018 'Fox & Friends' segment about a Central American caravan, 'I mean, there's a reason you can't bring a kid to school unless he's inoculated.' Kilmeade did not provide any factual evidence to suggest an increased risk of disease from caravan members, nor did he indicate what kind of diseases were of concern. Pictures of Immigrants with Scabies Nearly all arguments or memes asserting a risk of disease from southern border crossing used photographs and news stories from a specific outbreak that occurred in that area during in the summer of 2014. A representative post of this ilk displayed a photograph and posited that 'the bumps on this illegal's body who was detained from the Caravan @ the Border is smallpox': The accompanying image showed a man with a case of scabies (a dermatologic condition caused by mites), not smallpox, however. The photograph used in this 2 November 2018 meme was taken by U.S. Rep. Henry Cuellar at a Customs and Border Protection facility in South Texas and was first published by the Houston Chronicle on 11 June 2014. That year saw the beginning of a large influx of Central Americans attempting to cross into the United States, an event attributed largely to increasing political unrest and poverty in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, and one which overwhelmed the existing U.S. immigration and border patrol capacities at the time. The 2014 scabies outbreak was heavily reported on by right-wing outlets such as Breitbart and the Washington Times. These outlets and many others uncritically repeated speculative fears presented in local news segments, and they continued to be cited to justify fears of disease from immigrants in 2018. It is therefore informative to look at the fears raised in these 2014 stories to see if they were justified. A 10 June 2014 article in the Washington Times raised concerns that diseases 'of an even more serious nature' than scabies could infect the United States (emphasis on speculative language ours): Border patrol agents who have already experienced scabies infestations from illegal border crossers now fear the thousands of children who are sweeping into the United States are bringing a host of new diseases and ailments - of even more serious nature. 'We are starting to see chicken pox, MRSA staph infections; we are starting to see different viruses,' said Rio Grande Valley Border Patrol agent Chris Cabrera said, ABC 15 reported ... Mr. Cabrera warned that diseases brought across the border could easily spread to other parts of the country. 'It's contagious. We are transporting people to different parts of the state and different parts of the country,' he said, ABC15 reported. Breitbart's coverage from 27 May 2014 raised similar fears about a spread of disease to American children, going so far as to cite a 'human stash house' mechanism from a local news segment (emphasis on speculative language ours): Overcrowding has made it difficult to identify and quarantine infected detainees. Many are concerned that scabies and other illnesses may be passed onto the general public. Hidalgo County Health Department director Eddie Olivarez told Action 4 News that many illegal immigrants are likely contracting scabies in human stash houses, as they make their journey into the U.S. 'The situation is that probably in the stash houses on the Mexican side or even on the U.S. side those stash houses are probably infected with this particular illness,' he said. Each of these reports made a testable prediction: cases of scabies, chicken pox, MRSA, or staph infections brought to America by the surge of immigrants from Central America that began in 2014 would spread to American children in an epidemiologically significant way. The Center for Immigration Studies suggested that the scabies outbreak specifically could present 'a health crisis of significant proportion.' Since the publication of those stories in 2014, no large-scale outbreaks of scabies, chicken pox, MRSA, or staph infections credibly attributable to the transfer of disease from immigrants to the surrounding community have occurred. In the case of the scabies outbreak along the border in 2014, cases of non-detainees contracting the disease appear to have been limited to a few agents, as reported by the National Review: Approximately 40 immigrants in detention at one center in the U.S. Customs and Border Protection's San Diego Sector have active cases of scabies, a source tells National Review Online. ... Two agents at the Brown Field Border Patrol Station developed rashes on July 3 after processing illegal immigrants from Texas, according to a letter obtained by NRO written by Ron Zermeno, health and safety director of National Border Patrol Council Local 1613. Scabies, a treatable skin infection caused by microscopic mites, remains a significant risk for detained populations living in close quarters, or for populations of people in developing countries with poorer sanitation facilities, but it is not considered at significant risk for the American populace and is easily treatable with proper medical care. Do Refugees Present a Significant Health Risk to the Communities They Enter? The broader question of how refugee populations affect the overall health of the communities they enter is one that merits investigation. The viral Facebook post referenced above makes mention of several diseases, but many of those diseases are commonly present primarily in refugee populations. A 2017 literature review of infectious disease in refugee and asylum seekers in Europe found that the most common maladies for these populations were tuberculosis and hepatitis B. That same study noted, however, that 'though we see high transmission in the refugee populations, there is very little risk of spread to the autochthonous population.' In other words, these diseases spread fast amongst the refugee populations, but not among the communities they enter. A 2017 report for the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute authored by medical geographer Eric Carter made this point in broader detail. That report stated that the number of Americans or other foreigners who travel to the countries from which refugees are fleeing far exceeds the number of people entering the country as refugees. Therefore, the number of people exposed to foreign disease from Americans returning from refugee countries likely exceeds those exposed to disease from actual refugees: Tightening border controls usually does little to stem the spread of infectious diseases, partly as a result of the inherent dynamics of how epidemics unfold across space and time. Moreover, the sheer volume of people traveling internationally overwhelms attempts to single out immigrants or foreign nationals for heightened scrutiny at airports and other ports of entry. As an example, that report cited concerns that immigrants from Central American countries were bringing Zika (one of the diseases attributed to immigrants in the 2018 immigration memes) to the United States in 2015. While pundits attempted to blame illegal immigration for Zika cases in the United States, the numbers do not support such a conclusion: Even as some politicians and pundits suggest that immigrants are greater carriers of disease, there is no evidence to suggest that their rates of infectious disease exceed those of travelers generally. And migrants make up a small proportion of international travelers. For example, the annual number of U.S. travelers to areas where Zika transmission occurs - about 40 million, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) - dwarfs the number of migrants from those regions ... It appears thus far that the vast majority of Zika cases in the continental United States come from American travelers who acquired the infection while abroad, not from immigrants to the country. In 2016, 185 million legal northbound crossings took place at ports of entry along the 2,000-mile border between the United States and Mexico. By comparison, the number of migrants in the latest caravan (2018) is in the thousands. Another relevant point is that many of the maladies listed in anti-immigration memes concern diseases that are all but eradicated in the United States thanks to vaccination efforts. Polio, for example, has been considered eradicated from the entire American continent since 1994. In fact, many of the countries in Central America from which the migrants are attempting to flee have higher vaccination rates for diseases such as measles than the United States does. In 2017, 92% of children aged 12-23 months were vaccinated for measles in the United States. In Mexico and Honduras that figure was higher, at 96% and 97% respectively. El Salvador and Guatemala have seen a recent decline in vaccination rates, with 85% and 86% coverage in 2017. Regardless, the notion that these commonly vaccinated conditions are in wide circulation outside of the United States and therefore present in higher levels in border-crossing immigrants is dubious. A measles outbreak in an Arizona immigration detention facility occurred in 2016, infecting both staff and detainees, but it did not spread to the general public. Its peril to the U.S. staff stemmed primarily from a lack of vaccination on the part of the staff working there. Rush Limbaugh attempted to blame a different measles outbreak at Disneyland in 2015 on illegal immigration, but that outbreak was exacerbated not by illegal immigration but by lower than average vaccination rates in Southern California. While the CDC does suggest some risk of communicable disease transmission across the southern border, they do not attribute it to illegal immigration, but rather to the high level of transportation across the border in general: The large movement of people across the United States and Mexico border has led to an increase in health issues, particularly infectious diseases such as tuberculosis. Besides the millions of travelers who cross the U.S.-Mexico border each year, the border region also has a population of approximately 11 million people, many of whom cross the border daily for a variety of reasons. More than 30% of U.S. border families are living at or below poverty level, and they are at risk of foodborne, waterborne, and infectious diseases that, for the most part, can be prevented by vaccines. In short, while detained populations of people held in close quarters carry a higher risk for the transmission of communicable diseases such as scabies or tuberculosis within that population, no evidence suggests that those populations pose a health risk to the surrounding communities. Efforts on the internet to make that risk appear acute do so by misrepresenting out-of-date figures and by ignoring the epidemiological realities of a world that sees one billion people cross international borders every year.

In short, while detained populations of people held in close quarters carry a higher risk for the transmission of communicable diseases such as scabies or tuberculosis within that population, no evidence suggests that those populations pose a health risk to the surrounding communities. Efforts on the internet to make that risk appear acute do so by misrepresenting out-of-date figures and by ignoring the epidemiological realities of a world that sees one billion people cross international borders every year.

A photograph shows an Immigrant who crossed the United States' southern border with a case of smallpox.

Contradiction

As political rhetoric about the dangers of immigration grew to a 'Full Trumpism' fever pitch in the run-up to the 2018 U.S. midterm elections, several online meme-makers and anti-immigration pundits ratcheted up speculation about the potential health risks posed by immigration across the southern U.S. border. Such claims were usually heavily speculative 'what if' statements, tended to be light on factual analysis or good-faith arguments, and were usually attached to misleading or unrelated photos in an effort to generate fear. 'What about diseases?' Brian Kilmeade opined in a 29 October 2018 'Fox & Friends' segment about a Central American caravan, 'I mean, there's a reason you can't bring a kid to school unless he's inoculated.' Kilmeade did not provide any factual evidence to suggest an increased risk of disease from caravan members, nor did he indicate what kind of diseases were of concern. Pictures of Immigrants with Scabies Nearly all arguments or memes asserting a risk of disease from southern border crossing used photographs and news stories from a specific outbreak that occurred in that area during in the summer of 2014. A representative post of this ilk displayed a photograph and posited that 'the bumps on this illegal's body who was detained from the Caravan @ the Border is smallpox': The accompanying image showed a man with a case of scabies (a dermatologic condition caused by mites), not smallpox, however. The photograph used in this 2 November 2018 meme was taken by U.S. Rep. Henry Cuellar at a Customs and Border Protection facility in South Texas and was first published by the Houston Chronicle on 11 June 2014. That year saw the beginning of a large influx of Central Americans attempting to cross into the United States, an event attributed largely to increasing political unrest and poverty in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, and one which overwhelmed the existing U.S. immigration and border patrol capacities at the time. The 2014 scabies outbreak was heavily reported on by right-wing outlets such as Breitbart and the Washington Times. These outlets and many others uncritically repeated speculative fears presented in local news segments, and they continued to be cited to justify fears of disease from immigrants in 2018. It is therefore informative to look at the fears raised in these 2014 stories to see if they were justified. A 10 June 2014 article in the Washington Times raised concerns that diseases 'of an even more serious nature' than scabies could infect the United States (emphasis on speculative language ours): Border patrol agents who have already experienced scabies infestations from illegal border crossers now fear the thousands of children who are sweeping into the United States are bringing a host of new diseases and ailments - of even more serious nature. 'We are starting to see chicken pox, MRSA staph infections; we are starting to see different viruses,' said Rio Grande Valley Border Patrol agent Chris Cabrera said, ABC 15 reported ... Mr. Cabrera warned that diseases brought across the border could easily spread to other parts of the country. 'It's contagious. We are transporting people to different parts of the state and different parts of the country,' he said, ABC15 reported. Breitbart's coverage from 27 May 2014 raised similar fears about a spread of disease to American children, going so far as to cite a 'human stash house' mechanism from a local news segment (emphasis on speculative language ours): Overcrowding has made it difficult to identify and quarantine infected detainees. Many are concerned that scabies and other illnesses may be passed onto the general public. Hidalgo County Health Department director Eddie Olivarez told Action 4 News that many illegal immigrants are likely contracting scabies in human stash houses, as they make their journey into the U.S. 'The situation is that probably in the stash houses on the Mexican side or even on the U.S. side those stash houses are probably infected with this particular illness,' he said. Each of these reports made a testable prediction: cases of scabies, chicken pox, MRSA, or staph infections brought to America by the surge of immigrants from Central America that began in 2014 would spread to American children in an epidemiologically significant way. The Center for Immigration Studies suggested that the scabies outbreak specifically could present 'a health crisis of significant proportion.' Since the publication of those stories in 2014, no large-scale outbreaks of scabies, chicken pox, MRSA, or staph infections credibly attributable to the transfer of disease from immigrants to the surrounding community have occurred. In the case of the scabies outbreak along the border in 2014, cases of non-detainees contracting the disease appear to have been limited to a few agents, as reported by the National Review: Approximately 40 immigrants in detention at one center in the U.S. Customs and Border Protection's San Diego Sector have active cases of scabies, a source tells National Review Online. ... Two agents at the Brown Field Border Patrol Station developed rashes on July 3 after processing illegal immigrants from Texas, according to a letter obtained by NRO written by Ron Zermeno, health and safety director of National Border Patrol Council Local 1613. Scabies, a treatable skin infection caused by microscopic mites, remains a significant risk for detained populations living in close quarters, or for populations of people in developing countries with poorer sanitation facilities, but it is not considered at significant risk for the American populace and is easily treatable with proper medical care. Do Refugees Present a Significant Health Risk to the Communities They Enter? The broader question of how refugee populations affect the overall health of the communities they enter is one that merits investigation. The viral Facebook post referenced above makes mention of several diseases, but many of those diseases are commonly present primarily in refugee populations. A 2017 literature review of infectious disease in refugee and asylum seekers in Europe found that the most common maladies for these populations were tuberculosis and hepatitis B. That same study noted, however, that 'though we see high transmission in the refugee populations, there is very little risk of spread to the autochthonous population.' In other words, these diseases spread fast amongst the refugee populations, but not among the communities they enter. A 2017 report for the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute authored by medical geographer Eric Carter made this point in broader detail. That report stated that the number of Americans or other foreigners who travel to the countries from which refugees are fleeing far exceeds the number of people entering the country as refugees. Therefore, the number of people exposed to foreign disease from Americans returning from refugee countries likely exceeds those exposed to disease from actual refugees: Tightening border controls usually does little to stem the spread of infectious diseases, partly as a result of the inherent dynamics of how epidemics unfold across space and time. Moreover, the sheer volume of people traveling internationally overwhelms attempts to single out immigrants or foreign nationals for heightened scrutiny at airports and other ports of entry. As an example, that report cited concerns that immigrants from Central American countries were bringing Zika (one of the diseases attributed to immigrants in the 2018 immigration memes) to the United States in 2015. While pundits attempted to blame illegal immigration for Zika cases in the United States, the numbers do not support such a conclusion: Even as some politicians and pundits suggest that immigrants are greater carriers of disease, there is no evidence to suggest that their rates of infectious disease exceed those of travelers generally. And migrants make up a small proportion of international travelers. For example, the annual number of U.S. travelers to areas where Zika transmission occurs - about 40 million, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) - dwarfs the number of migrants from those regions ... It appears thus far that the vast majority of Zika cases in the continental United States come from American travelers who acquired the infection while abroad, not from immigrants to the country. In 2016, 185 million legal northbound crossings took place at ports of entry along the 2,000-mile border between the United States and Mexico. By comparison, the number of migrants in the latest caravan (2018) is in the thousands. Another relevant point is that many of the maladies listed in anti-immigration memes concern diseases that are all but eradicated in the United States thanks to vaccination efforts. Polio, for example, has been considered eradicated from the entire American continent since 1994. In fact, many of the countries in Central America from which the migrants are attempting to flee have higher vaccination rates for diseases such as measles than the United States does. In 2017, 92% of children aged 12-23 months were vaccinated for measles in the United States. In Mexico and Honduras that figure was higher, at 96% and 97% respectively. El Salvador and Guatemala have seen a recent decline in vaccination rates, with 85% and 86% coverage in 2017. Regardless, the notion that these commonly vaccinated conditions are in wide circulation outside of the United States and therefore present in higher levels in border-crossing immigrants is dubious. A measles outbreak in an Arizona immigration detention facility occurred in 2016, infecting both staff and detainees, but it did not spread to the general public. Its peril to the U.S. staff stemmed primarily from a lack of vaccination on the part of the staff working there. Rush Limbaugh attempted to blame a different measles outbreak at Disneyland in 2015 on illegal immigration, but that outbreak was exacerbated not by illegal immigration but by lower than average vaccination rates in Southern California. While the CDC does suggest some risk of communicable disease transmission across the southern border, they do not attribute it to illegal immigration, but rather to the high level of transportation across the border in general: The large movement of people across the United States and Mexico border has led to an increase in health issues, particularly infectious diseases such as tuberculosis. Besides the millions of travelers who cross the U.S.-Mexico border each year, the border region also has a population of approximately 11 million people, many of whom cross the border daily for a variety of reasons. More than 30% of U.S. border families are living at or below poverty level, and they are at risk of foodborne, waterborne, and infectious diseases that, for the most part, can be prevented by vaccines. In short, while detained populations of people held in close quarters carry a higher risk for the transmission of communicable diseases such as scabies or tuberculosis within that population, no evidence suggests that those populations pose a health risk to the surrounding communities. Efforts on the internet to make that risk appear acute do so by misrepresenting out-of-date figures and by ignoring the epidemiological realities of a world that sees one billion people cross international borders every year.

In short, while detained populations of people held in close quarters carry a higher risk for the transmission of communicable diseases such as scabies or tuberculosis within that population, no evidence suggests that those populations pose a health risk to the surrounding communities. Efforts on the internet to make that risk appear acute do so by misrepresenting out-of-date figures and by ignoring the epidemiological realities of a world that sees one billion people cross international borders every year.

A photograph shows an Immigrant who crossed the United States' southern border with a case of smallpox.

Contradiction

As political rhetoric about the dangers of immigration grew to a 'Full Trumpism' fever pitch in the run-up to the 2018 U.S. midterm elections, several online meme-makers and anti-immigration pundits ratcheted up speculation about the potential health risks posed by immigration across the southern U.S. border. Such claims were usually heavily speculative 'what if' statements, tended to be light on factual analysis or good-faith arguments, and were usually attached to misleading or unrelated photos in an effort to generate fear. 'What about diseases?' Brian Kilmeade opined in a 29 October 2018 'Fox & Friends' segment about a Central American caravan, 'I mean, there's a reason you can't bring a kid to school unless he's inoculated.' Kilmeade did not provide any factual evidence to suggest an increased risk of disease from caravan members, nor did he indicate what kind of diseases were of concern. Pictures of Immigrants with Scabies Nearly all arguments or memes asserting a risk of disease from southern border crossing used photographs and news stories from a specific outbreak that occurred in that area during in the summer of 2014. A representative post of this ilk displayed a photograph and posited that 'the bumps on this illegal's body who was detained from the Caravan @ the Border is smallpox': The accompanying image showed a man with a case of scabies (a dermatologic condition caused by mites), not smallpox, however. The photograph used in this 2 November 2018 meme was taken by U.S. Rep. Henry Cuellar at a Customs and Border Protection facility in South Texas and was first published by the Houston Chronicle on 11 June 2014. That year saw the beginning of a large influx of Central Americans attempting to cross into the United States, an event attributed largely to increasing political unrest and poverty in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, and one which overwhelmed the existing U.S. immigration and border patrol capacities at the time. The 2014 scabies outbreak was heavily reported on by right-wing outlets such as Breitbart and the Washington Times. These outlets and many others uncritically repeated speculative fears presented in local news segments, and they continued to be cited to justify fears of disease from immigrants in 2018. It is therefore informative to look at the fears raised in these 2014 stories to see if they were justified. A 10 June 2014 article in the Washington Times raised concerns that diseases 'of an even more serious nature' than scabies could infect the United States (emphasis on speculative language ours): Border patrol agents who have already experienced scabies infestations from illegal border crossers now fear the thousands of children who are sweeping into the United States are bringing a host of new diseases and ailments - of even more serious nature. 'We are starting to see chicken pox, MRSA staph infections; we are starting to see different viruses,' said Rio Grande Valley Border Patrol agent Chris Cabrera said, ABC 15 reported ... Mr. Cabrera warned that diseases brought across the border could easily spread to other parts of the country. 'It's contagious. We are transporting people to different parts of the state and different parts of the country,' he said, ABC15 reported. Breitbart's coverage from 27 May 2014 raised similar fears about a spread of disease to American children, going so far as to cite a 'human stash house' mechanism from a local news segment (emphasis on speculative language ours): Overcrowding has made it difficult to identify and quarantine infected detainees. Many are concerned that scabies and other illnesses may be passed onto the general public. Hidalgo County Health Department director Eddie Olivarez told Action 4 News that many illegal immigrants are likely contracting scabies in human stash houses, as they make their journey into the U.S. 'The situation is that probably in the stash houses on the Mexican side or even on the U.S. side those stash houses are probably infected with this particular illness,' he said. Each of these reports made a testable prediction: cases of scabies, chicken pox, MRSA, or staph infections brought to America by the surge of immigrants from Central America that began in 2014 would spread to American children in an epidemiologically significant way. The Center for Immigration Studies suggested that the scabies outbreak specifically could present 'a health crisis of significant proportion.' Since the publication of those stories in 2014, no large-scale outbreaks of scabies, chicken pox, MRSA, or staph infections credibly attributable to the transfer of disease from immigrants to the surrounding community have occurred. In the case of the scabies outbreak along the border in 2014, cases of non-detainees contracting the disease appear to have been limited to a few agents, as reported by the National Review: Approximately 40 immigrants in detention at one center in the U.S. Customs and Border Protection's San Diego Sector have active cases of scabies, a source tells National Review Online. ... Two agents at the Brown Field Border Patrol Station developed rashes on July 3 after processing illegal immigrants from Texas, according to a letter obtained by NRO written by Ron Zermeno, health and safety director of National Border Patrol Council Local 1613. Scabies, a treatable skin infection caused by microscopic mites, remains a significant risk for detained populations living in close quarters, or for populations of people in developing countries with poorer sanitation facilities, but it is not considered at significant risk for the American populace and is easily treatable with proper medical care. Do Refugees Present a Significant Health Risk to the Communities They Enter? The broader question of how refugee populations affect the overall health of the communities they enter is one that merits investigation. The viral Facebook post referenced above makes mention of several diseases, but many of those diseases are commonly present primarily in refugee populations. A 2017 literature review of infectious disease in refugee and asylum seekers in Europe found that the most common maladies for these populations were tuberculosis and hepatitis B. That same study noted, however, that 'though we see high transmission in the refugee populations, there is very little risk of spread to the autochthonous population.' In other words, these diseases spread fast amongst the refugee populations, but not among the communities they enter. A 2017 report for the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute authored by medical geographer Eric Carter made this point in broader detail. That report stated that the number of Americans or other foreigners who travel to the countries from which refugees are fleeing far exceeds the number of people entering the country as refugees. Therefore, the number of people exposed to foreign disease from Americans returning from refugee countries likely exceeds those exposed to disease from actual refugees: Tightening border controls usually does little to stem the spread of infectious diseases, partly as a result of the inherent dynamics of how epidemics unfold across space and time. Moreover, the sheer volume of people traveling internationally overwhelms attempts to single out immigrants or foreign nationals for heightened scrutiny at airports and other ports of entry. As an example, that report cited concerns that immigrants from Central American countries were bringing Zika (one of the diseases attributed to immigrants in the 2018 immigration memes) to the United States in 2015. While pundits attempted to blame illegal immigration for Zika cases in the United States, the numbers do not support such a conclusion: Even as some politicians and pundits suggest that immigrants are greater carriers of disease, there is no evidence to suggest that their rates of infectious disease exceed those of travelers generally. And migrants make up a small proportion of international travelers. For example, the annual number of U.S. travelers to areas where Zika transmission occurs - about 40 million, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) - dwarfs the number of migrants from those regions ... It appears thus far that the vast majority of Zika cases in the continental United States come from American travelers who acquired the infection while abroad, not from immigrants to the country. In 2016, 185 million legal northbound crossings took place at ports of entry along the 2,000-mile border between the United States and Mexico. By comparison, the number of migrants in the latest caravan (2018) is in the thousands. Another relevant point is that many of the maladies listed in anti-immigration memes concern diseases that are all but eradicated in the United States thanks to vaccination efforts. Polio, for example, has been considered eradicated from the entire American continent since 1994. In fact, many of the countries in Central America from which the migrants are attempting to flee have higher vaccination rates for diseases such as measles than the United States does. In 2017, 92% of children aged 12-23 months were vaccinated for measles in the United States. In Mexico and Honduras that figure was higher, at 96% and 97% respectively. El Salvador and Guatemala have seen a recent decline in vaccination rates, with 85% and 86% coverage in 2017. Regardless, the notion that these commonly vaccinated conditions are in wide circulation outside of the United States and therefore present in higher levels in border-crossing immigrants is dubious. A measles outbreak in an Arizona immigration detention facility occurred in 2016, infecting both staff and detainees, but it did not spread to the general public. Its peril to the U.S. staff stemmed primarily from a lack of vaccination on the part of the staff working there. Rush Limbaugh attempted to blame a different measles outbreak at Disneyland in 2015 on illegal immigration, but that outbreak was exacerbated not by illegal immigration but by lower than average vaccination rates in Southern California. While the CDC does suggest some risk of communicable disease transmission across the southern border, they do not attribute it to illegal immigration, but rather to the high level of transportation across the border in general: The large movement of people across the United States and Mexico border has led to an increase in health issues, particularly infectious diseases such as tuberculosis. Besides the millions of travelers who cross the U.S.-Mexico border each year, the border region also has a population of approximately 11 million people, many of whom cross the border daily for a variety of reasons. More than 30% of U.S. border families are living at or below poverty level, and they are at risk of foodborne, waterborne, and infectious diseases that, for the most part, can be prevented by vaccines. In short, while detained populations of people held in close quarters carry a higher risk for the transmission of communicable diseases such as scabies or tuberculosis within that population, no evidence suggests that those populations pose a health risk to the surrounding communities. Efforts on the internet to make that risk appear acute do so by misrepresenting out-of-date figures and by ignoring the epidemiological realities of a world that sees one billion people cross international borders every year.

In short, while detained populations of people held in close quarters carry a higher risk for the transmission of communicable diseases such as scabies or tuberculosis within that population, no evidence suggests that those populations pose a health risk to the surrounding communities. Efforts on the internet to make that risk appear acute do so by misrepresenting out-of-date figures and by ignoring the epidemiological realities of a world that sees one billion people cross international borders every year.

CNN created 'fake news' and staged protests in which Muslim residents purportedly protested a 3 June 2017 attack in London.

Contradiction

On 4 June 2017, the day after seven people were killed in an attack in London subsequently claimed by the Islamic State, conspiracy theorists claimed that CNN International 'staged' a demonstration by Muslims condemning the incident the next day. A video published to YouTube by Twitter user Markantro on 4 June 2017 was a primary source for the rumor: Note the white police officers leaving before the CNN shot & the Asian officers coming in. They then left after they went off air! #fakenews https://t.co/Kkk0g5jOPA - Mark (@markantro) June 4, 2017 The claims spread widely from there, with right-leaning American blog Gateway Pundit leading the charge in presenting it as an example of 'fake news' in the making. According to multiple versions of the rumor, the Twitter user (@Markantro) happened across the scene of CNN's staging or fabricating a report on Muslims' protesting the attacks in London. But nothing suggested that CNN 'staged' the demonstrations to any extent greater than engaging protesters, directing their positions, and asking them questions as part of a news segment. Those spreading the rumor claimed that the same person appeared in different videos wearing the same unique pink trousers, a dead giveaway that the person was a 'paid protester.' However, rumor-mongers did not elaborate as to why multiple photographs of the same protester indicated perfidy rather than multi-outlet coverage of the same protest. The Daily Wire similarly speculated that the demonstrations were wholly falsified by CNN rather than simply reported on: CNN International (CNNi) staged a backdrop of persons - presumably Muslims, including women in hijabs - during a Sunday news segment in London regarding the previous evening's mass murder Islamic terrorist attack in the U.K. capital. CNNi likely sought to hype a narrative of widespread Muslim opposition to the Islamic State (ISIS) and Islamic terrorism, more broadly. Video captured by Twitter user @markantro shows CNNi's Becky Anderson directing the ostensibly anti-jihad Muslims to appear as backdrops for a live segment. Nothing in any of the rumors provided definitive (or even shaky) evidence that the protests were staged (by CNN or any other party) for the purposes of favorable media coverage. Mediaite's coverage of the claims highlighted the public's unfamiliarity with the process of reporting live news: For those not familiar with live news production, it is actually not that uncommon for hosts and producers to arrange protesters or pedestrians behind reporter to provide a varied background. Sources familiar with this live shoot tell Mediaite that the protesters ('Muslim Mothers') were already very near the location and the Police simply allowed them to move behind Ms. Anderson and crew. That said, there is reason to fairly critique this as 'editorializing' the shoot and not just reporting the news. And in a climate where CNN is feeling a lot of criticism - most of which is unfounded - from the conservative corners of the Internet, this footage won't help their cause. CNN also provided a statement about the rumors terming them to be 'nonsense': This story is nonsense. The group of demonstrators that was at the police cordon was being allowed through by officers so they could show their signs to the gathered media. The CNN crew along with other media present simply filmed them doing so. CNN's Twitter public relations account responded to a tweet alleging that the coverage was staged, again describing the claims as 'nonsense': This is nonsense. Police let demonstrators through the cordon to show their signs. CNN along with other media simply filmed them doing so. - CNN International PR (@CNNPRUK) June 5, 2017 A source at CNN said that the reporters and equipment seen in the third-party video represented several news organizations, not just CNN, situated in front of a police cordon near London Bridge. The small group of Muslims at the demonstration (actually a vigil, according to the participants, who were there of their own volition) asked police for permission to cross the police barrier to be photographed. The police assented and escorted them into position. The shot was 'arranged' only to the extent necessary to fit the group into the camera frame. A CNN source told us: We were in the middle of a live show when they appeared, and they moved in front of us so we could see their signs - for people to suggest that the protest was staged by the media is ludicrous. That the demonstration was real, not staged, is clear from additional press coverage of the event. According to the BBC, the gathering was organized by the London Fatwa Council, who confirmed that their chairman, Shaykh Mohammad Yazdani, was present at the vigil to pay respects to the victims. He also issued the public statement excerpted below: I was shocked to my core when I learnt of the devastating attacks in London, as I left the mosque last night. Whilst myself and the majority of the Muslim community were busy in night time prayers, a horrible act of terror was being played out outside. I am deeply, deeply aggrieved that such heinous violence and terror again be upon our streets. In the sacred month of Ramadhan when Muslims are engrossed in the remembrance of God and in togetherness with their families and communities, I cannot accept that the perpetrators of this terror are observers of my faith. Acts of terror are always deplorable but more so during the sacred month of Ramadhan. Coverage by the Telegraph and the Standard included photos and video of participants placing flowers at the site: In short, the vigil was not a media invention. It was organized by the London Fatwa Council, a legitimate Islamic organization whose members have taken a vocal stand against terrorist attacks. Vigil participants were photographed, at their request, by international press organizations, including CNN. The charge that CNN or anyone else 'staged' the event to 'hype a narrative of widespread Muslim opposition' to the attacks is a politically motivated mischaracterization of what occurred.David Emery

In short, the vigil was not a media invention. It was organized by the London Fatwa Council, a legitimate Islamic organization whose members have taken a vocal stand against terrorist attacks. Vigil participants were photographed, at their request, by international press organizations, including CNN. The charge that CNN or anyone else 'staged' the event to 'hype a narrative of widespread Muslim opposition' to the attacks is a politically motivated mischaracterization of what occurred.David Emery

CNN created 'fake news' and staged protests in which Muslim residents purportedly protested a 3 June 2017 attack in London.

Contradiction

On 4 June 2017, the day after seven people were killed in an attack in London subsequently claimed by the Islamic State, conspiracy theorists claimed that CNN International 'staged' a demonstration by Muslims condemning the incident the next day. A video published to YouTube by Twitter user Markantro on 4 June 2017 was a primary source for the rumor: Note the white police officers leaving before the CNN shot & the Asian officers coming in. They then left after they went off air! #fakenews https://t.co/Kkk0g5jOPA - Mark (@markantro) June 4, 2017 The claims spread widely from there, with right-leaning American blog Gateway Pundit leading the charge in presenting it as an example of 'fake news' in the making. According to multiple versions of the rumor, the Twitter user (@Markantro) happened across the scene of CNN's staging or fabricating a report on Muslims' protesting the attacks in London. But nothing suggested that CNN 'staged' the demonstrations to any extent greater than engaging protesters, directing their positions, and asking them questions as part of a news segment. Those spreading the rumor claimed that the same person appeared in different videos wearing the same unique pink trousers, a dead giveaway that the person was a 'paid protester.' However, rumor-mongers did not elaborate as to why multiple photographs of the same protester indicated perfidy rather than multi-outlet coverage of the same protest. The Daily Wire similarly speculated that the demonstrations were wholly falsified by CNN rather than simply reported on: CNN International (CNNi) staged a backdrop of persons - presumably Muslims, including women in hijabs - during a Sunday news segment in London regarding the previous evening's mass murder Islamic terrorist attack in the U.K. capital. CNNi likely sought to hype a narrative of widespread Muslim opposition to the Islamic State (ISIS) and Islamic terrorism, more broadly. Video captured by Twitter user @markantro shows CNNi's Becky Anderson directing the ostensibly anti-jihad Muslims to appear as backdrops for a live segment. Nothing in any of the rumors provided definitive (or even shaky) evidence that the protests were staged (by CNN or any other party) for the purposes of favorable media coverage. Mediaite's coverage of the claims highlighted the public's unfamiliarity with the process of reporting live news: For those not familiar with live news production, it is actually not that uncommon for hosts and producers to arrange protesters or pedestrians behind reporter to provide a varied background. Sources familiar with this live shoot tell Mediaite that the protesters ('Muslim Mothers') were already very near the location and the Police simply allowed them to move behind Ms. Anderson and crew. That said, there is reason to fairly critique this as 'editorializing' the shoot and not just reporting the news. And in a climate where CNN is feeling a lot of criticism - most of which is unfounded - from the conservative corners of the Internet, this footage won't help their cause. CNN also provided a statement about the rumors terming them to be 'nonsense': This story is nonsense. The group of demonstrators that was at the police cordon was being allowed through by officers so they could show their signs to the gathered media. The CNN crew along with other media present simply filmed them doing so. CNN's Twitter public relations account responded to a tweet alleging that the coverage was staged, again describing the claims as 'nonsense': This is nonsense. Police let demonstrators through the cordon to show their signs. CNN along with other media simply filmed them doing so. - CNN International PR (@CNNPRUK) June 5, 2017 A source at CNN said that the reporters and equipment seen in the third-party video represented several news organizations, not just CNN, situated in front of a police cordon near London Bridge. The small group of Muslims at the demonstration (actually a vigil, according to the participants, who were there of their own volition) asked police for permission to cross the police barrier to be photographed. The police assented and escorted them into position. The shot was 'arranged' only to the extent necessary to fit the group into the camera frame. A CNN source told us: We were in the middle of a live show when they appeared, and they moved in front of us so we could see their signs - for people to suggest that the protest was staged by the media is ludicrous. That the demonstration was real, not staged, is clear from additional press coverage of the event. According to the BBC, the gathering was organized by the London Fatwa Council, who confirmed that their chairman, Shaykh Mohammad Yazdani, was present at the vigil to pay respects to the victims. He also issued the public statement excerpted below: I was shocked to my core when I learnt of the devastating attacks in London, as I left the mosque last night. Whilst myself and the majority of the Muslim community were busy in night time prayers, a horrible act of terror was being played out outside. I am deeply, deeply aggrieved that such heinous violence and terror again be upon our streets. In the sacred month of Ramadhan when Muslims are engrossed in the remembrance of God and in togetherness with their families and communities, I cannot accept that the perpetrators of this terror are observers of my faith. Acts of terror are always deplorable but more so during the sacred month of Ramadhan. Coverage by the Telegraph and the Standard included photos and video of participants placing flowers at the site: In short, the vigil was not a media invention. It was organized by the London Fatwa Council, a legitimate Islamic organization whose members have taken a vocal stand against terrorist attacks. Vigil participants were photographed, at their request, by international press organizations, including CNN. The charge that CNN or anyone else 'staged' the event to 'hype a narrative of widespread Muslim opposition' to the attacks is a politically motivated mischaracterization of what occurred.David Emery

In short, the vigil was not a media invention. It was organized by the London Fatwa Council, a legitimate Islamic organization whose members have taken a vocal stand against terrorist attacks. Vigil participants were photographed, at their request, by international press organizations, including CNN. The charge that CNN or anyone else 'staged' the event to 'hype a narrative of widespread Muslim opposition' to the attacks is a politically motivated mischaracterization of what occurred.David Emery

CNN created 'fake news' and staged protests in which Muslim residents purportedly protested a 3 June 2017 attack in London.

Contradiction

On 4 June 2017, the day after seven people were killed in an attack in London subsequently claimed by the Islamic State, conspiracy theorists claimed that CNN International 'staged' a demonstration by Muslims condemning the incident the next day. A video published to YouTube by Twitter user Markantro on 4 June 2017 was a primary source for the rumor: Note the white police officers leaving before the CNN shot & the Asian officers coming in. They then left after they went off air! #fakenews https://t.co/Kkk0g5jOPA - Mark (@markantro) June 4, 2017 The claims spread widely from there, with right-leaning American blog Gateway Pundit leading the charge in presenting it as an example of 'fake news' in the making. According to multiple versions of the rumor, the Twitter user (@Markantro) happened across the scene of CNN's staging or fabricating a report on Muslims' protesting the attacks in London. But nothing suggested that CNN 'staged' the demonstrations to any extent greater than engaging protesters, directing their positions, and asking them questions as part of a news segment. Those spreading the rumor claimed that the same person appeared in different videos wearing the same unique pink trousers, a dead giveaway that the person was a 'paid protester.' However, rumor-mongers did not elaborate as to why multiple photographs of the same protester indicated perfidy rather than multi-outlet coverage of the same protest. The Daily Wire similarly speculated that the demonstrations were wholly falsified by CNN rather than simply reported on: CNN International (CNNi) staged a backdrop of persons - presumably Muslims, including women in hijabs - during a Sunday news segment in London regarding the previous evening's mass murder Islamic terrorist attack in the U.K. capital. CNNi likely sought to hype a narrative of widespread Muslim opposition to the Islamic State (ISIS) and Islamic terrorism, more broadly. Video captured by Twitter user @markantro shows CNNi's Becky Anderson directing the ostensibly anti-jihad Muslims to appear as backdrops for a live segment. Nothing in any of the rumors provided definitive (or even shaky) evidence that the protests were staged (by CNN or any other party) for the purposes of favorable media coverage. Mediaite's coverage of the claims highlighted the public's unfamiliarity with the process of reporting live news: For those not familiar with live news production, it is actually not that uncommon for hosts and producers to arrange protesters or pedestrians behind reporter to provide a varied background. Sources familiar with this live shoot tell Mediaite that the protesters ('Muslim Mothers') were already very near the location and the Police simply allowed them to move behind Ms. Anderson and crew. That said, there is reason to fairly critique this as 'editorializing' the shoot and not just reporting the news. And in a climate where CNN is feeling a lot of criticism - most of which is unfounded - from the conservative corners of the Internet, this footage won't help their cause. CNN also provided a statement about the rumors terming them to be 'nonsense': This story is nonsense. The group of demonstrators that was at the police cordon was being allowed through by officers so they could show their signs to the gathered media. The CNN crew along with other media present simply filmed them doing so. CNN's Twitter public relations account responded to a tweet alleging that the coverage was staged, again describing the claims as 'nonsense': This is nonsense. Police let demonstrators through the cordon to show their signs. CNN along with other media simply filmed them doing so. - CNN International PR (@CNNPRUK) June 5, 2017 A source at CNN said that the reporters and equipment seen in the third-party video represented several news organizations, not just CNN, situated in front of a police cordon near London Bridge. The small group of Muslims at the demonstration (actually a vigil, according to the participants, who were there of their own volition) asked police for permission to cross the police barrier to be photographed. The police assented and escorted them into position. The shot was 'arranged' only to the extent necessary to fit the group into the camera frame. A CNN source told us: We were in the middle of a live show when they appeared, and they moved in front of us so we could see their signs - for people to suggest that the protest was staged by the media is ludicrous. That the demonstration was real, not staged, is clear from additional press coverage of the event. According to the BBC, the gathering was organized by the London Fatwa Council, who confirmed that their chairman, Shaykh Mohammad Yazdani, was present at the vigil to pay respects to the victims. He also issued the public statement excerpted below: I was shocked to my core when I learnt of the devastating attacks in London, as I left the mosque last night. Whilst myself and the majority of the Muslim community were busy in night time prayers, a horrible act of terror was being played out outside. I am deeply, deeply aggrieved that such heinous violence and terror again be upon our streets. In the sacred month of Ramadhan when Muslims are engrossed in the remembrance of God and in togetherness with their families and communities, I cannot accept that the perpetrators of this terror are observers of my faith. Acts of terror are always deplorable but more so during the sacred month of Ramadhan. Coverage by the Telegraph and the Standard included photos and video of participants placing flowers at the site: In short, the vigil was not a media invention. It was organized by the London Fatwa Council, a legitimate Islamic organization whose members have taken a vocal stand against terrorist attacks. Vigil participants were photographed, at their request, by international press organizations, including CNN. The charge that CNN or anyone else 'staged' the event to 'hype a narrative of widespread Muslim opposition' to the attacks is a politically motivated mischaracterization of what occurred.David Emery

In short, the vigil was not a media invention. It was organized by the London Fatwa Council, a legitimate Islamic organization whose members have taken a vocal stand against terrorist attacks. Vigil participants were photographed, at their request, by international press organizations, including CNN. The charge that CNN or anyone else 'staged' the event to 'hype a narrative of widespread Muslim opposition' to the attacks is a politically motivated mischaracterization of what occurred.David Emery

CNN created 'fake news' and staged protests in which Muslim residents purportedly protested a 3 June 2017 attack in London.

Contradiction

On 4 June 2017, the day after seven people were killed in an attack in London subsequently claimed by the Islamic State, conspiracy theorists claimed that CNN International 'staged' a demonstration by Muslims condemning the incident the next day. A video published to YouTube by Twitter user Markantro on 4 June 2017 was a primary source for the rumor: Note the white police officers leaving before the CNN shot & the Asian officers coming in. They then left after they went off air! #fakenews https://t.co/Kkk0g5jOPA - Mark (@markantro) June 4, 2017 The claims spread widely from there, with right-leaning American blog Gateway Pundit leading the charge in presenting it as an example of 'fake news' in the making. According to multiple versions of the rumor, the Twitter user (@Markantro) happened across the scene of CNN's staging or fabricating a report on Muslims' protesting the attacks in London. But nothing suggested that CNN 'staged' the demonstrations to any extent greater than engaging protesters, directing their positions, and asking them questions as part of a news segment. Those spreading the rumor claimed that the same person appeared in different videos wearing the same unique pink trousers, a dead giveaway that the person was a 'paid protester.' However, rumor-mongers did not elaborate as to why multiple photographs of the same protester indicated perfidy rather than multi-outlet coverage of the same protest. The Daily Wire similarly speculated that the demonstrations were wholly falsified by CNN rather than simply reported on: CNN International (CNNi) staged a backdrop of persons - presumably Muslims, including women in hijabs - during a Sunday news segment in London regarding the previous evening's mass murder Islamic terrorist attack in the U.K. capital. CNNi likely sought to hype a narrative of widespread Muslim opposition to the Islamic State (ISIS) and Islamic terrorism, more broadly. Video captured by Twitter user @markantro shows CNNi's Becky Anderson directing the ostensibly anti-jihad Muslims to appear as backdrops for a live segment. Nothing in any of the rumors provided definitive (or even shaky) evidence that the protests were staged (by CNN or any other party) for the purposes of favorable media coverage. Mediaite's coverage of the claims highlighted the public's unfamiliarity with the process of reporting live news: For those not familiar with live news production, it is actually not that uncommon for hosts and producers to arrange protesters or pedestrians behind reporter to provide a varied background. Sources familiar with this live shoot tell Mediaite that the protesters ('Muslim Mothers') were already very near the location and the Police simply allowed them to move behind Ms. Anderson and crew. That said, there is reason to fairly critique this as 'editorializing' the shoot and not just reporting the news. And in a climate where CNN is feeling a lot of criticism - most of which is unfounded - from the conservative corners of the Internet, this footage won't help their cause. CNN also provided a statement about the rumors terming them to be 'nonsense': This story is nonsense. The group of demonstrators that was at the police cordon was being allowed through by officers so they could show their signs to the gathered media. The CNN crew along with other media present simply filmed them doing so. CNN's Twitter public relations account responded to a tweet alleging that the coverage was staged, again describing the claims as 'nonsense': This is nonsense. Police let demonstrators through the cordon to show their signs. CNN along with other media simply filmed them doing so. - CNN International PR (@CNNPRUK) June 5, 2017 A source at CNN said that the reporters and equipment seen in the third-party video represented several news organizations, not just CNN, situated in front of a police cordon near London Bridge. The small group of Muslims at the demonstration (actually a vigil, according to the participants, who were there of their own volition) asked police for permission to cross the police barrier to be photographed. The police assented and escorted them into position. The shot was 'arranged' only to the extent necessary to fit the group into the camera frame. A CNN source told us: We were in the middle of a live show when they appeared, and they moved in front of us so we could see their signs - for people to suggest that the protest was staged by the media is ludicrous. That the demonstration was real, not staged, is clear from additional press coverage of the event. According to the BBC, the gathering was organized by the London Fatwa Council, who confirmed that their chairman, Shaykh Mohammad Yazdani, was present at the vigil to pay respects to the victims. He also issued the public statement excerpted below: I was shocked to my core when I learnt of the devastating attacks in London, as I left the mosque last night. Whilst myself and the majority of the Muslim community were busy in night time prayers, a horrible act of terror was being played out outside. I am deeply, deeply aggrieved that such heinous violence and terror again be upon our streets. In the sacred month of Ramadhan when Muslims are engrossed in the remembrance of God and in togetherness with their families and communities, I cannot accept that the perpetrators of this terror are observers of my faith. Acts of terror are always deplorable but more so during the sacred month of Ramadhan. Coverage by the Telegraph and the Standard included photos and video of participants placing flowers at the site: In short, the vigil was not a media invention. It was organized by the London Fatwa Council, a legitimate Islamic organization whose members have taken a vocal stand against terrorist attacks. Vigil participants were photographed, at their request, by international press organizations, including CNN. The charge that CNN or anyone else 'staged' the event to 'hype a narrative of widespread Muslim opposition' to the attacks is a politically motivated mischaracterization of what occurred.David Emery

In short, the vigil was not a media invention. It was organized by the London Fatwa Council, a legitimate Islamic organization whose members have taken a vocal stand against terrorist attacks. Vigil participants were photographed, at their request, by international press organizations, including CNN. The charge that CNN or anyone else 'staged' the event to 'hype a narrative of widespread Muslim opposition' to the attacks is a politically motivated mischaracterization of what occurred.David Emery

CNN created 'fake news' and staged protests in which Muslim residents purportedly protested a 3 June 2017 attack in London.

Contradiction

On 4 June 2017, the day after seven people were killed in an attack in London subsequently claimed by the Islamic State, conspiracy theorists claimed that CNN International 'staged' a demonstration by Muslims condemning the incident the next day. A video published to YouTube by Twitter user Markantro on 4 June 2017 was a primary source for the rumor: Note the white police officers leaving before the CNN shot & the Asian officers coming in. They then left after they went off air! #fakenews https://t.co/Kkk0g5jOPA - Mark (@markantro) June 4, 2017 The claims spread widely from there, with right-leaning American blog Gateway Pundit leading the charge in presenting it as an example of 'fake news' in the making. According to multiple versions of the rumor, the Twitter user (@Markantro) happened across the scene of CNN's staging or fabricating a report on Muslims' protesting the attacks in London. But nothing suggested that CNN 'staged' the demonstrations to any extent greater than engaging protesters, directing their positions, and asking them questions as part of a news segment. Those spreading the rumor claimed that the same person appeared in different videos wearing the same unique pink trousers, a dead giveaway that the person was a 'paid protester.' However, rumor-mongers did not elaborate as to why multiple photographs of the same protester indicated perfidy rather than multi-outlet coverage of the same protest. The Daily Wire similarly speculated that the demonstrations were wholly falsified by CNN rather than simply reported on: CNN International (CNNi) staged a backdrop of persons - presumably Muslims, including women in hijabs - during a Sunday news segment in London regarding the previous evening's mass murder Islamic terrorist attack in the U.K. capital. CNNi likely sought to hype a narrative of widespread Muslim opposition to the Islamic State (ISIS) and Islamic terrorism, more broadly. Video captured by Twitter user @markantro shows CNNi's Becky Anderson directing the ostensibly anti-jihad Muslims to appear as backdrops for a live segment. Nothing in any of the rumors provided definitive (or even shaky) evidence that the protests were staged (by CNN or any other party) for the purposes of favorable media coverage. Mediaite's coverage of the claims highlighted the public's unfamiliarity with the process of reporting live news: For those not familiar with live news production, it is actually not that uncommon for hosts and producers to arrange protesters or pedestrians behind reporter to provide a varied background. Sources familiar with this live shoot tell Mediaite that the protesters ('Muslim Mothers') were already very near the location and the Police simply allowed them to move behind Ms. Anderson and crew. That said, there is reason to fairly critique this as 'editorializing' the shoot and not just reporting the news. And in a climate where CNN is feeling a lot of criticism - most of which is unfounded - from the conservative corners of the Internet, this footage won't help their cause. CNN also provided a statement about the rumors terming them to be 'nonsense': This story is nonsense. The group of demonstrators that was at the police cordon was being allowed through by officers so they could show their signs to the gathered media. The CNN crew along with other media present simply filmed them doing so. CNN's Twitter public relations account responded to a tweet alleging that the coverage was staged, again describing the claims as 'nonsense': This is nonsense. Police let demonstrators through the cordon to show their signs. CNN along with other media simply filmed them doing so. - CNN International PR (@CNNPRUK) June 5, 2017 A source at CNN said that the reporters and equipment seen in the third-party video represented several news organizations, not just CNN, situated in front of a police cordon near London Bridge. The small group of Muslims at the demonstration (actually a vigil, according to the participants, who were there of their own volition) asked police for permission to cross the police barrier to be photographed. The police assented and escorted them into position. The shot was 'arranged' only to the extent necessary to fit the group into the camera frame. A CNN source told us: We were in the middle of a live show when they appeared, and they moved in front of us so we could see their signs - for people to suggest that the protest was staged by the media is ludicrous. That the demonstration was real, not staged, is clear from additional press coverage of the event. According to the BBC, the gathering was organized by the London Fatwa Council, who confirmed that their chairman, Shaykh Mohammad Yazdani, was present at the vigil to pay respects to the victims. He also issued the public statement excerpted below: I was shocked to my core when I learnt of the devastating attacks in London, as I left the mosque last night. Whilst myself and the majority of the Muslim community were busy in night time prayers, a horrible act of terror was being played out outside. I am deeply, deeply aggrieved that such heinous violence and terror again be upon our streets. In the sacred month of Ramadhan when Muslims are engrossed in the remembrance of God and in togetherness with their families and communities, I cannot accept that the perpetrators of this terror are observers of my faith. Acts of terror are always deplorable but more so during the sacred month of Ramadhan. Coverage by the Telegraph and the Standard included photos and video of participants placing flowers at the site: In short, the vigil was not a media invention. It was organized by the London Fatwa Council, a legitimate Islamic organization whose members have taken a vocal stand against terrorist attacks. Vigil participants were photographed, at their request, by international press organizations, including CNN. The charge that CNN or anyone else 'staged' the event to 'hype a narrative of widespread Muslim opposition' to the attacks is a politically motivated mischaracterization of what occurred.David Emery

In short, the vigil was not a media invention. It was organized by the London Fatwa Council, a legitimate Islamic organization whose members have taken a vocal stand against terrorist attacks. Vigil participants were photographed, at their request, by international press organizations, including CNN. The charge that CNN or anyone else 'staged' the event to 'hype a narrative of widespread Muslim opposition' to the attacks is a politically motivated mischaracterization of what occurred.David Emery

CNN created 'fake news' and staged protests in which Muslim residents purportedly protested a 3 June 2017 attack in London.

Contradiction

On 4 June 2017, the day after seven people were killed in an attack in London subsequently claimed by the Islamic State, conspiracy theorists claimed that CNN International 'staged' a demonstration by Muslims condemning the incident the next day. A video published to YouTube by Twitter user Markantro on 4 June 2017 was a primary source for the rumor: Note the white police officers leaving before the CNN shot & the Asian officers coming in. They then left after they went off air! #fakenews https://t.co/Kkk0g5jOPA - Mark (@markantro) June 4, 2017 The claims spread widely from there, with right-leaning American blog Gateway Pundit leading the charge in presenting it as an example of 'fake news' in the making. According to multiple versions of the rumor, the Twitter user (@Markantro) happened across the scene of CNN's staging or fabricating a report on Muslims' protesting the attacks in London. But nothing suggested that CNN 'staged' the demonstrations to any extent greater than engaging protesters, directing their positions, and asking them questions as part of a news segment. Those spreading the rumor claimed that the same person appeared in different videos wearing the same unique pink trousers, a dead giveaway that the person was a 'paid protester.' However, rumor-mongers did not elaborate as to why multiple photographs of the same protester indicated perfidy rather than multi-outlet coverage of the same protest. The Daily Wire similarly speculated that the demonstrations were wholly falsified by CNN rather than simply reported on: CNN International (CNNi) staged a backdrop of persons - presumably Muslims, including women in hijabs - during a Sunday news segment in London regarding the previous evening's mass murder Islamic terrorist attack in the U.K. capital. CNNi likely sought to hype a narrative of widespread Muslim opposition to the Islamic State (ISIS) and Islamic terrorism, more broadly. Video captured by Twitter user @markantro shows CNNi's Becky Anderson directing the ostensibly anti-jihad Muslims to appear as backdrops for a live segment. Nothing in any of the rumors provided definitive (or even shaky) evidence that the protests were staged (by CNN or any other party) for the purposes of favorable media coverage. Mediaite's coverage of the claims highlighted the public's unfamiliarity with the process of reporting live news: For those not familiar with live news production, it is actually not that uncommon for hosts and producers to arrange protesters or pedestrians behind reporter to provide a varied background. Sources familiar with this live shoot tell Mediaite that the protesters ('Muslim Mothers') were already very near the location and the Police simply allowed them to move behind Ms. Anderson and crew. That said, there is reason to fairly critique this as 'editorializing' the shoot and not just reporting the news. And in a climate where CNN is feeling a lot of criticism - most of which is unfounded - from the conservative corners of the Internet, this footage won't help their cause. CNN also provided a statement about the rumors terming them to be 'nonsense': This story is nonsense. The group of demonstrators that was at the police cordon was being allowed through by officers so they could show their signs to the gathered media. The CNN crew along with other media present simply filmed them doing so. CNN's Twitter public relations account responded to a tweet alleging that the coverage was staged, again describing the claims as 'nonsense': This is nonsense. Police let demonstrators through the cordon to show their signs. CNN along with other media simply filmed them doing so. - CNN International PR (@CNNPRUK) June 5, 2017 A source at CNN said that the reporters and equipment seen in the third-party video represented several news organizations, not just CNN, situated in front of a police cordon near London Bridge. The small group of Muslims at the demonstration (actually a vigil, according to the participants, who were there of their own volition) asked police for permission to cross the police barrier to be photographed. The police assented and escorted them into position. The shot was 'arranged' only to the extent necessary to fit the group into the camera frame. A CNN source told us: We were in the middle of a live show when they appeared, and they moved in front of us so we could see their signs - for people to suggest that the protest was staged by the media is ludicrous. That the demonstration was real, not staged, is clear from additional press coverage of the event. According to the BBC, the gathering was organized by the London Fatwa Council, who confirmed that their chairman, Shaykh Mohammad Yazdani, was present at the vigil to pay respects to the victims. He also issued the public statement excerpted below: I was shocked to my core when I learnt of the devastating attacks in London, as I left the mosque last night. Whilst myself and the majority of the Muslim community were busy in night time prayers, a horrible act of terror was being played out outside. I am deeply, deeply aggrieved that such heinous violence and terror again be upon our streets. In the sacred month of Ramadhan when Muslims are engrossed in the remembrance of God and in togetherness with their families and communities, I cannot accept that the perpetrators of this terror are observers of my faith. Acts of terror are always deplorable but more so during the sacred month of Ramadhan. Coverage by the Telegraph and the Standard included photos and video of participants placing flowers at the site: In short, the vigil was not a media invention. It was organized by the London Fatwa Council, a legitimate Islamic organization whose members have taken a vocal stand against terrorist attacks. Vigil participants were photographed, at their request, by international press organizations, including CNN. The charge that CNN or anyone else 'staged' the event to 'hype a narrative of widespread Muslim opposition' to the attacks is a politically motivated mischaracterization of what occurred.David Emery

In short, the vigil was not a media invention. It was organized by the London Fatwa Council, a legitimate Islamic organization whose members have taken a vocal stand against terrorist attacks. Vigil participants were photographed, at their request, by international press organizations, including CNN. The charge that CNN or anyone else 'staged' the event to 'hype a narrative of widespread Muslim opposition' to the attacks is a politically motivated mischaracterization of what occurred.David Emery

CNN created 'fake news' and staged protests in which Muslim residents purportedly protested a 3 June 2017 attack in London.

Contradiction

On 4 June 2017, the day after seven people were killed in an attack in London subsequently claimed by the Islamic State, conspiracy theorists claimed that CNN International 'staged' a demonstration by Muslims condemning the incident the next day. A video published to YouTube by Twitter user Markantro on 4 June 2017 was a primary source for the rumor: Note the white police officers leaving before the CNN shot & the Asian officers coming in. They then left after they went off air! #fakenews https://t.co/Kkk0g5jOPA - Mark (@markantro) June 4, 2017 The claims spread widely from there, with right-leaning American blog Gateway Pundit leading the charge in presenting it as an example of 'fake news' in the making. According to multiple versions of the rumor, the Twitter user (@Markantro) happened across the scene of CNN's staging or fabricating a report on Muslims' protesting the attacks in London. But nothing suggested that CNN 'staged' the demonstrations to any extent greater than engaging protesters, directing their positions, and asking them questions as part of a news segment. Those spreading the rumor claimed that the same person appeared in different videos wearing the same unique pink trousers, a dead giveaway that the person was a 'paid protester.' However, rumor-mongers did not elaborate as to why multiple photographs of the same protester indicated perfidy rather than multi-outlet coverage of the same protest. The Daily Wire similarly speculated that the demonstrations were wholly falsified by CNN rather than simply reported on: CNN International (CNNi) staged a backdrop of persons - presumably Muslims, including women in hijabs - during a Sunday news segment in London regarding the previous evening's mass murder Islamic terrorist attack in the U.K. capital. CNNi likely sought to hype a narrative of widespread Muslim opposition to the Islamic State (ISIS) and Islamic terrorism, more broadly. Video captured by Twitter user @markantro shows CNNi's Becky Anderson directing the ostensibly anti-jihad Muslims to appear as backdrops for a live segment. Nothing in any of the rumors provided definitive (or even shaky) evidence that the protests were staged (by CNN or any other party) for the purposes of favorable media coverage. Mediaite's coverage of the claims highlighted the public's unfamiliarity with the process of reporting live news: For those not familiar with live news production, it is actually not that uncommon for hosts and producers to arrange protesters or pedestrians behind reporter to provide a varied background. Sources familiar with this live shoot tell Mediaite that the protesters ('Muslim Mothers') were already very near the location and the Police simply allowed them to move behind Ms. Anderson and crew. That said, there is reason to fairly critique this as 'editorializing' the shoot and not just reporting the news. And in a climate where CNN is feeling a lot of criticism - most of which is unfounded - from the conservative corners of the Internet, this footage won't help their cause. CNN also provided a statement about the rumors terming them to be 'nonsense': This story is nonsense. The group of demonstrators that was at the police cordon was being allowed through by officers so they could show their signs to the gathered media. The CNN crew along with other media present simply filmed them doing so. CNN's Twitter public relations account responded to a tweet alleging that the coverage was staged, again describing the claims as 'nonsense': This is nonsense. Police let demonstrators through the cordon to show their signs. CNN along with other media simply filmed them doing so. - CNN International PR (@CNNPRUK) June 5, 2017 A source at CNN said that the reporters and equipment seen in the third-party video represented several news organizations, not just CNN, situated in front of a police cordon near London Bridge. The small group of Muslims at the demonstration (actually a vigil, according to the participants, who were there of their own volition) asked police for permission to cross the police barrier to be photographed. The police assented and escorted them into position. The shot was 'arranged' only to the extent necessary to fit the group into the camera frame. A CNN source told us: We were in the middle of a live show when they appeared, and they moved in front of us so we could see their signs - for people to suggest that the protest was staged by the media is ludicrous. That the demonstration was real, not staged, is clear from additional press coverage of the event. According to the BBC, the gathering was organized by the London Fatwa Council, who confirmed that their chairman, Shaykh Mohammad Yazdani, was present at the vigil to pay respects to the victims. He also issued the public statement excerpted below: I was shocked to my core when I learnt of the devastating attacks in London, as I left the mosque last night. Whilst myself and the majority of the Muslim community were busy in night time prayers, a horrible act of terror was being played out outside. I am deeply, deeply aggrieved that such heinous violence and terror again be upon our streets. In the sacred month of Ramadhan when Muslims are engrossed in the remembrance of God and in togetherness with their families and communities, I cannot accept that the perpetrators of this terror are observers of my faith. Acts of terror are always deplorable but more so during the sacred month of Ramadhan. Coverage by the Telegraph and the Standard included photos and video of participants placing flowers at the site: In short, the vigil was not a media invention. It was organized by the London Fatwa Council, a legitimate Islamic organization whose members have taken a vocal stand against terrorist attacks. Vigil participants were photographed, at their request, by international press organizations, including CNN. The charge that CNN or anyone else 'staged' the event to 'hype a narrative of widespread Muslim opposition' to the attacks is a politically motivated mischaracterization of what occurred.David Emery

In short, the vigil was not a media invention. It was organized by the London Fatwa Council, a legitimate Islamic organization whose members have taken a vocal stand against terrorist attacks. Vigil participants were photographed, at their request, by international press organizations, including CNN. The charge that CNN or anyone else 'staged' the event to 'hype a narrative of widespread Muslim opposition' to the attacks is a politically motivated mischaracterization of what occurred.David Emery

A video shows teenage environmental activist Greta Thunberg shooting a gun.

Contradiction

In December 2019, a video supposedly showing teenage environmental activist Greta Thunberg shooting a gun started circulating on social media: Now I have a machine gun. Ho Ho Ho Not sure Greta's lefty friends will be pleased though 🤔 pic.twitter.com/1xCFvrzfRt - Skipski X (@Skiplols) December 10, 2019 This video racked up more than 1 million views within a few days of its initial posting. It was circulated both by people who found that it was out of character for Thunberg, a 'leftist' who is fighting against climate change, and by those who found Thunberg doubly threatening when wielding a gun. This video, however, does not show the 16-year-old Swedish girl but rather a Twitter user named 'Emmy.' Emmy (@eslinge) posted this video to her Twitter page on Dec. 7, 2019, a few days before anyone claimed that this footage featured Thunberg, along with the caption 'So anyway, I started blasting.' Emmy then shared a second video of her shooting this weapon: Mynningsbroms vs kamerastativ, 1-0 pic.twitter.com/wtd1mddpMo - Emmy ಠ_ಠ (@eslinge) December 7, 2019 Several people commented on Emmy's videos, saying that she looked like Thunberg. Emmy responded to one person, writing: 'Första gången jag fick höra det blev jag vansinnig men nu känns det nästan lite charmigt att vara lik henne. :D' translated as: 'The first time I heard it, I got crazy but now it feels almost a little charming to be like her. : D.' Emmy told the AFP that she was about 15 years older than Thunberg. She also said that she hopes 'people don't really think that I am her. I don't want to cause Greta any harm, I think she's great.' Emmy has also posted several articles from international news outlets that have also debunked this claim. https://t.co/5gLeeTy3vY - Emmy ಠ_ಠ (@eslinge) December 12, 2019 In short, this video does not show environmental activist Greta Thunberg shooting a gun but a Twitter user named Emmy.

In short, this video does not show environmental activist Greta Thunberg shooting a gun but a Twitter user named Emmy.

A video shows teenage environmental activist Greta Thunberg shooting a gun.

Contradiction

In December 2019, a video supposedly showing teenage environmental activist Greta Thunberg shooting a gun started circulating on social media: Now I have a machine gun. Ho Ho Ho Not sure Greta's lefty friends will be pleased though 🤔 pic.twitter.com/1xCFvrzfRt - Skipski X (@Skiplols) December 10, 2019 This video racked up more than 1 million views within a few days of its initial posting. It was circulated both by people who found that it was out of character for Thunberg, a 'leftist' who is fighting against climate change, and by those who found Thunberg doubly threatening when wielding a gun. This video, however, does not show the 16-year-old Swedish girl but rather a Twitter user named 'Emmy.' Emmy (@eslinge) posted this video to her Twitter page on Dec. 7, 2019, a few days before anyone claimed that this footage featured Thunberg, along with the caption 'So anyway, I started blasting.' Emmy then shared a second video of her shooting this weapon: Mynningsbroms vs kamerastativ, 1-0 pic.twitter.com/wtd1mddpMo - Emmy ಠ_ಠ (@eslinge) December 7, 2019 Several people commented on Emmy's videos, saying that she looked like Thunberg. Emmy responded to one person, writing: 'Första gången jag fick höra det blev jag vansinnig men nu känns det nästan lite charmigt att vara lik henne. :D' translated as: 'The first time I heard it, I got crazy but now it feels almost a little charming to be like her. : D.' Emmy told the AFP that she was about 15 years older than Thunberg. She also said that she hopes 'people don't really think that I am her. I don't want to cause Greta any harm, I think she's great.' Emmy has also posted several articles from international news outlets that have also debunked this claim. https://t.co/5gLeeTy3vY - Emmy ಠ_ಠ (@eslinge) December 12, 2019 In short, this video does not show environmental activist Greta Thunberg shooting a gun but a Twitter user named Emmy.

In short, this video does not show environmental activist Greta Thunberg shooting a gun but a Twitter user named Emmy.

A video shows teenage environmental activist Greta Thunberg shooting a gun.

Contradiction

In December 2019, a video supposedly showing teenage environmental activist Greta Thunberg shooting a gun started circulating on social media: Now I have a machine gun. Ho Ho Ho Not sure Greta's lefty friends will be pleased though 🤔 pic.twitter.com/1xCFvrzfRt - Skipski X (@Skiplols) December 10, 2019 This video racked up more than 1 million views within a few days of its initial posting. It was circulated both by people who found that it was out of character for Thunberg, a 'leftist' who is fighting against climate change, and by those who found Thunberg doubly threatening when wielding a gun. This video, however, does not show the 16-year-old Swedish girl but rather a Twitter user named 'Emmy.' Emmy (@eslinge) posted this video to her Twitter page on Dec. 7, 2019, a few days before anyone claimed that this footage featured Thunberg, along with the caption 'So anyway, I started blasting.' Emmy then shared a second video of her shooting this weapon: Mynningsbroms vs kamerastativ, 1-0 pic.twitter.com/wtd1mddpMo - Emmy ಠ_ಠ (@eslinge) December 7, 2019 Several people commented on Emmy's videos, saying that she looked like Thunberg. Emmy responded to one person, writing: 'Första gången jag fick höra det blev jag vansinnig men nu känns det nästan lite charmigt att vara lik henne. :D' translated as: 'The first time I heard it, I got crazy but now it feels almost a little charming to be like her. : D.' Emmy told the AFP that she was about 15 years older than Thunberg. She also said that she hopes 'people don't really think that I am her. I don't want to cause Greta any harm, I think she's great.' Emmy has also posted several articles from international news outlets that have also debunked this claim. https://t.co/5gLeeTy3vY - Emmy ಠ_ಠ (@eslinge) December 12, 2019 In short, this video does not show environmental activist Greta Thunberg shooting a gun but a Twitter user named Emmy.

In short, this video does not show environmental activist Greta Thunberg shooting a gun but a Twitter user named Emmy.

Jimi Hendrix, Jim Morrison, Janis Joplin, and Kurt Cobain all died with white Bic lighters in their pockets.

Contradiction

A popular pop culture superstition holds that a white BIC disposable lighter is bad luck. While there are many reasons why people believe this, the most commonly offered reason is that several members of the '27 club' (musicians who all passed away at the age of 27) - including Kurt Cobain, Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, and Jim Morrison - all allegedly had this product in their pockets when they died. This rumor was summed up in a 2013 post on High Ideas as follows: Everyone knows that white lighters are Bad Luck. Most people understand it as a fact, even though they may not believe it. But does anyone know the real reason behind it? There are multiple reasons in history why white lighters are considered bad luck. The first reason, is because when disposable lighters first came out, they only came in two colors. Black, and White. Now, when people would try to pack bowls down with their lighters, the ash would often get stuck to the bottom of their lighters. So when they were being investigated by police, white lighters would show signs of smoking and ash burns, and black lighters wouldn't. Another reason revolves around Four Famous Musicians (and Fellow Stoners), Jim Morrison, Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, and Kurt Cobain. All four of them were left-handed, and they all died at the age of 27. The coincidence was that all four of their autopsies showed that when they died, they had White Bic Lighters in their pockets. So next time that you are in a sesh, and someone pulls out a White Lighter, throw that shit away or brake it. I have had several personal cases where bad things happened, and every single time we had used a white lighter. Still don't believe me? Keep using your white lighters and you will find out soon. We're skeptical of the notion that an inanimate object can by itself bring good or bad fortune to its bearer, so this article will be limited to examining whether Hendrix, Morrison, Joplin, and Cobain were all carrying white cigarette lighters at the time of their deaths: The First Disposable Lighters The biggest knock on this theory is that the white disposable BIC lighter simply didn't exist when Hendrix, Morrison, or Joplin died. The first disposable BIC lighter wasn't produced until 1973, more than a year after Morrison's 3 July 1971 death, and Hendrix and Joplin had both passed away even earlier, in 1970. While it simply isn't possible for Morrison, Hendrix, or Joplin to have been in possession of a white BIC lighter at the time of their deaths, they could have been carrying some other brand of disposable lighter, such as the Cricket: However, this is also unlikely. The Cricket was available in the 1960s in France, but it wasn't commonly found in the United States until after the brand was acquired by Gillette and introduced to American customers in 1972, well after the deaths of Hendrix and Joplin. (Jim Morrison had been living in France just prior to his death and expired in his Paris apartment, so he quite possibly could have encounter Cricket lighters prior to their introduction to the American marketplace.) Furthermore, we looked through several biographies and obituaries offering the circumstances of the passings of Joplin, Hendrix, and Morrison, and found no mention of lighters being in their possession at the time of their deaths. In fact, mention of white lighters seems to appear only in articles that propagate the rumor. Kurt Cobain Of the four musicians frequently associated with this rumor, only Kurt Cobain could unquestionably have been carrying a white BIC lighter at the time of his death (since he committed suicide in 1994, long after BICs had gained prominence in the United States). According to a set of photographs released by the Seattle Police Department in 2014, Cobain had two lighters in close proximity to him on the day of his death. However, neither of those lighters was in his pocket, and neither was white. One multi-colored lighter was discovered in his heroin kit, and another lighter that appears distinctly pink in photographs was found nearby: The official Los Angeles medical examiner-coroner's autopsy report for Janis Joplin is available online and makes no mention of any cigarette lighter (of any brand, color, or type) having been found on or around her body. Jim Morrison died in the bathtub of his Paris apartment and therefore couldn't have had any lighter on his person when he expired (since he was not in the habit of bathing fully clothed). Also, Morrison was determined to have died of 'heart failure,' so French authorities deemed an autopsy unnecessary and did not perform one. Therefore, no autopsy report ever existed to document the presence of a lighter found near his body or in his clothing, as claimed. Jimi Hendrix's death certificate (listing his cause of death as 'inhalation of vomit' and 'barbiturate intoxication') is available online, but we could not locate a full copy of his autopsy report. Nonetheless, we found no secondary references to that report indicating it included any mention of a (white) cigarette lighter on or about Hendrix's body. In short, there's extremely little chance, and zero evidence documenting, that any of the four musicians mentioned above had white disposable lighters in their pockets at the time they breathed their last.

In short, there's extremely little chance, and zero evidence documenting, that any of the four musicians mentioned above had white disposable lighters in their pockets at the time they breathed their last.

In fall 2020, the U.S. federal government released plans to force every citizen to get a COVID-19 vaccine.

Contradiction

Snopes is still fighting an 'infodemic' of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and 'advice' you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease. Since the early months of the COVID-19 outbreak in the U.S., rumors circulated that authorities planned to impose mandatory vaccinations to end the pandemic. One viral video, for instance, spewed a conspiracy theory that the government would forcibly round up unvaccinated people, while another popular meme falsely claimed schools would force COVID-19 vaccinations on children returning to classes in fall 2020. The online campaign aimed to discredit what epidemiologists viewed as one of the best ways to defeat the virus: a widely available vaccine, which as of this writing did not exist. By mid-September 2020, as immunization manufacturers scrambled to develop a viable product, Snopes received numerous inquiries about a new piece of viral content - a Sept. 16 web page titled, The Government Has Released Their Initial Plans to Force a Vaccine on Everyone. It alleged: Trump has the military lined up and ready to distribute this vaccine to the public, whether you want it or not. The plan is to distribute the vaccine first to health care and other vital workers, as well as those most vulnerable (likely the older populations). After production ramps up, it will be made available to all Americans who want it. If you decide you don't want it, don't worry, the military will help convince you. [...] Once this vaccine gets into your bloodstream, you cannot take it back out. This one is different from every other vaccine made, and it's going to be necessary if you want to get groceries or leave your house. Mandatory or not, they will do what they can to convince you to take this vaccine. In other words, the page claimed the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD), which oversees the military, was preparing to make citizens get an eventual COVID-19 vaccine if they want to frequent public spaces - all under directions from U.S. President Donald Trump. To debunk this theory, we considered the source of the claim. The web page existed on a website called Before It's News. The site attempted to brand itself as a news outlet accepting content from 'a community of individuals who report on what's going on around them, from all around the world,' according to its About us page. Anyone with a free account on the website can publish stories, and the most popular entries as of late October 2020 did not apply news writing standards but rather showed stream-of-consciousness writing on conspiracy theories. Considering the site's lack of, or nonexistent, editing structure and news judgment, we considered Before It's News a hub of what Snopes calls junk news. Next, we analyzed a transcript from a Sept. 16 White House press briefing, which appeared to be the basis for the web page's allegation of forced vaccinations. At the press conference, the Trump administration outlined its plan for getting vaccines to Americans when the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authorizes mass distribution. The president said the military was 'lined up' to help with the plan's logistics - confirming one aspect of the above-displayed claim - though no one at the event said vaccinations would be forced on people or that citizens would need the shots to leave their homes. After that, we reviewed federal documents with more details about the government's plans. A congressional report said the Department of Health and Human Services was leading vaccine research, while the DOD was partnering with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to distribute the final product. All parties were working to ensure 'every American who wants to receive a COVID-19 vaccine can receive one,' per the report. Nowhere in the documents did the government say it would force vaccinations on people. During our analysis, we also considered remarks by Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the NIH's National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases and a member of the White House coronavirus task force, at a virtual event hosted by George Washington University on Aug. 19. During the event, a student asked if Fauci supports a nationwide mandate of a COVID-19 vaccine. Fauci responded: No, definitely not - you don't want to mandate and try and force anyone to take a vaccine. We've never done that. You can mandate for certain groups of people, like health workers. But for the general population, you can't. I mean, here at my own hospital, at the NIH, we get influenza vaccines, and if you refuse with no good reason other than you just don't want to take it, then we don't allow you to take care of patients on the wards during the influenza season. So that's a mandate. But we don't want to be mandating from the federal government to the general population. It would be unenforceable and inappropriate. In addition to health care facilities, schools may require students and staff to receive certain immunizations before they can take classes, and employers can require workers to get vaccinations under certain conditions. But here's what's key in the debate over a government-issued order: The U.S. Constitution does not grant the federal government authority to impose a vaccine on all citizens. By legal standards, any violation of government mandates could result in fines, taxes, or other punishments. And according to Dorit Reiss, a law professor at the University of California Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco, existing laws 'almost certainly' prevent the federal government from creating a comprehensive COVID-19 vaccine mandate, NBC's 'Today' reported. The story said: The federal government has some ways to get people to vaccinate, imposing it as a condition of getting a passport, for example. That hasn't happened before, but such a requirement would be within the federal government's powers, Reiss noted. However, Reiss said state and city governments - not the federal government - have the authority to establish vaccine mandates so long as those proposed requirements are 'reasonable, proportional and enforced in a nondiscriminatory fashion,' according to the story. In sum, considering no evidence showed a U.S. federal agency, including the DOD, was preparing to make COVID-19 vaccinations mandatory for people to visit public spaces, as well as the federal government's limited power in terms of establishing such a mandate, we rate this claim 'False.'

In sum, considering no evidence showed a U.S. federal agency, including the DOD, was preparing to make COVID-19 vaccinations mandatory for people to visit public spaces, as well as the federal government's limited power in terms of establishing such a mandate, we rate this claim 'False.'

In fall 2020, the U.S. federal government released plans to force every citizen to get a COVID-19 vaccine.

Contradiction

Snopes is still fighting an 'infodemic' of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and 'advice' you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease. Since the early months of the COVID-19 outbreak in the U.S., rumors circulated that authorities planned to impose mandatory vaccinations to end the pandemic. One viral video, for instance, spewed a conspiracy theory that the government would forcibly round up unvaccinated people, while another popular meme falsely claimed schools would force COVID-19 vaccinations on children returning to classes in fall 2020. The online campaign aimed to discredit what epidemiologists viewed as one of the best ways to defeat the virus: a widely available vaccine, which as of this writing did not exist. By mid-September 2020, as immunization manufacturers scrambled to develop a viable product, Snopes received numerous inquiries about a new piece of viral content - a Sept. 16 web page titled, The Government Has Released Their Initial Plans to Force a Vaccine on Everyone. It alleged: Trump has the military lined up and ready to distribute this vaccine to the public, whether you want it or not. The plan is to distribute the vaccine first to health care and other vital workers, as well as those most vulnerable (likely the older populations). After production ramps up, it will be made available to all Americans who want it. If you decide you don't want it, don't worry, the military will help convince you. [...] Once this vaccine gets into your bloodstream, you cannot take it back out. This one is different from every other vaccine made, and it's going to be necessary if you want to get groceries or leave your house. Mandatory or not, they will do what they can to convince you to take this vaccine. In other words, the page claimed the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD), which oversees the military, was preparing to make citizens get an eventual COVID-19 vaccine if they want to frequent public spaces - all under directions from U.S. President Donald Trump. To debunk this theory, we considered the source of the claim. The web page existed on a website called Before It's News. The site attempted to brand itself as a news outlet accepting content from 'a community of individuals who report on what's going on around them, from all around the world,' according to its About us page. Anyone with a free account on the website can publish stories, and the most popular entries as of late October 2020 did not apply news writing standards but rather showed stream-of-consciousness writing on conspiracy theories. Considering the site's lack of, or nonexistent, editing structure and news judgment, we considered Before It's News a hub of what Snopes calls junk news. Next, we analyzed a transcript from a Sept. 16 White House press briefing, which appeared to be the basis for the web page's allegation of forced vaccinations. At the press conference, the Trump administration outlined its plan for getting vaccines to Americans when the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authorizes mass distribution. The president said the military was 'lined up' to help with the plan's logistics - confirming one aspect of the above-displayed claim - though no one at the event said vaccinations would be forced on people or that citizens would need the shots to leave their homes. After that, we reviewed federal documents with more details about the government's plans. A congressional report said the Department of Health and Human Services was leading vaccine research, while the DOD was partnering with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to distribute the final product. All parties were working to ensure 'every American who wants to receive a COVID-19 vaccine can receive one,' per the report. Nowhere in the documents did the government say it would force vaccinations on people. During our analysis, we also considered remarks by Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the NIH's National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases and a member of the White House coronavirus task force, at a virtual event hosted by George Washington University on Aug. 19. During the event, a student asked if Fauci supports a nationwide mandate of a COVID-19 vaccine. Fauci responded: No, definitely not - you don't want to mandate and try and force anyone to take a vaccine. We've never done that. You can mandate for certain groups of people, like health workers. But for the general population, you can't. I mean, here at my own hospital, at the NIH, we get influenza vaccines, and if you refuse with no good reason other than you just don't want to take it, then we don't allow you to take care of patients on the wards during the influenza season. So that's a mandate. But we don't want to be mandating from the federal government to the general population. It would be unenforceable and inappropriate. In addition to health care facilities, schools may require students and staff to receive certain immunizations before they can take classes, and employers can require workers to get vaccinations under certain conditions. But here's what's key in the debate over a government-issued order: The U.S. Constitution does not grant the federal government authority to impose a vaccine on all citizens. By legal standards, any violation of government mandates could result in fines, taxes, or other punishments. And according to Dorit Reiss, a law professor at the University of California Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco, existing laws 'almost certainly' prevent the federal government from creating a comprehensive COVID-19 vaccine mandate, NBC's 'Today' reported. The story said: The federal government has some ways to get people to vaccinate, imposing it as a condition of getting a passport, for example. That hasn't happened before, but such a requirement would be within the federal government's powers, Reiss noted. However, Reiss said state and city governments - not the federal government - have the authority to establish vaccine mandates so long as those proposed requirements are 'reasonable, proportional and enforced in a nondiscriminatory fashion,' according to the story. In sum, considering no evidence showed a U.S. federal agency, including the DOD, was preparing to make COVID-19 vaccinations mandatory for people to visit public spaces, as well as the federal government's limited power in terms of establishing such a mandate, we rate this claim 'False.'

In sum, considering no evidence showed a U.S. federal agency, including the DOD, was preparing to make COVID-19 vaccinations mandatory for people to visit public spaces, as well as the federal government's limited power in terms of establishing such a mandate, we rate this claim 'False.'

In fall 2020, the U.S. federal government released plans to force every citizen to get a COVID-19 vaccine.

Contradiction

Snopes is still fighting an 'infodemic' of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and 'advice' you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease. Since the early months of the COVID-19 outbreak in the U.S., rumors circulated that authorities planned to impose mandatory vaccinations to end the pandemic. One viral video, for instance, spewed a conspiracy theory that the government would forcibly round up unvaccinated people, while another popular meme falsely claimed schools would force COVID-19 vaccinations on children returning to classes in fall 2020. The online campaign aimed to discredit what epidemiologists viewed as one of the best ways to defeat the virus: a widely available vaccine, which as of this writing did not exist. By mid-September 2020, as immunization manufacturers scrambled to develop a viable product, Snopes received numerous inquiries about a new piece of viral content - a Sept. 16 web page titled, The Government Has Released Their Initial Plans to Force a Vaccine on Everyone. It alleged: Trump has the military lined up and ready to distribute this vaccine to the public, whether you want it or not. The plan is to distribute the vaccine first to health care and other vital workers, as well as those most vulnerable (likely the older populations). After production ramps up, it will be made available to all Americans who want it. If you decide you don't want it, don't worry, the military will help convince you. [...] Once this vaccine gets into your bloodstream, you cannot take it back out. This one is different from every other vaccine made, and it's going to be necessary if you want to get groceries or leave your house. Mandatory or not, they will do what they can to convince you to take this vaccine. In other words, the page claimed the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD), which oversees the military, was preparing to make citizens get an eventual COVID-19 vaccine if they want to frequent public spaces - all under directions from U.S. President Donald Trump. To debunk this theory, we considered the source of the claim. The web page existed on a website called Before It's News. The site attempted to brand itself as a news outlet accepting content from 'a community of individuals who report on what's going on around them, from all around the world,' according to its About us page. Anyone with a free account on the website can publish stories, and the most popular entries as of late October 2020 did not apply news writing standards but rather showed stream-of-consciousness writing on conspiracy theories. Considering the site's lack of, or nonexistent, editing structure and news judgment, we considered Before It's News a hub of what Snopes calls junk news. Next, we analyzed a transcript from a Sept. 16 White House press briefing, which appeared to be the basis for the web page's allegation of forced vaccinations. At the press conference, the Trump administration outlined its plan for getting vaccines to Americans when the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authorizes mass distribution. The president said the military was 'lined up' to help with the plan's logistics - confirming one aspect of the above-displayed claim - though no one at the event said vaccinations would be forced on people or that citizens would need the shots to leave their homes. After that, we reviewed federal documents with more details about the government's plans. A congressional report said the Department of Health and Human Services was leading vaccine research, while the DOD was partnering with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to distribute the final product. All parties were working to ensure 'every American who wants to receive a COVID-19 vaccine can receive one,' per the report. Nowhere in the documents did the government say it would force vaccinations on people. During our analysis, we also considered remarks by Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the NIH's National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases and a member of the White House coronavirus task force, at a virtual event hosted by George Washington University on Aug. 19. During the event, a student asked if Fauci supports a nationwide mandate of a COVID-19 vaccine. Fauci responded: No, definitely not - you don't want to mandate and try and force anyone to take a vaccine. We've never done that. You can mandate for certain groups of people, like health workers. But for the general population, you can't. I mean, here at my own hospital, at the NIH, we get influenza vaccines, and if you refuse with no good reason other than you just don't want to take it, then we don't allow you to take care of patients on the wards during the influenza season. So that's a mandate. But we don't want to be mandating from the federal government to the general population. It would be unenforceable and inappropriate. In addition to health care facilities, schools may require students and staff to receive certain immunizations before they can take classes, and employers can require workers to get vaccinations under certain conditions. But here's what's key in the debate over a government-issued order: The U.S. Constitution does not grant the federal government authority to impose a vaccine on all citizens. By legal standards, any violation of government mandates could result in fines, taxes, or other punishments. And according to Dorit Reiss, a law professor at the University of California Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco, existing laws 'almost certainly' prevent the federal government from creating a comprehensive COVID-19 vaccine mandate, NBC's 'Today' reported. The story said: The federal government has some ways to get people to vaccinate, imposing it as a condition of getting a passport, for example. That hasn't happened before, but such a requirement would be within the federal government's powers, Reiss noted. However, Reiss said state and city governments - not the federal government - have the authority to establish vaccine mandates so long as those proposed requirements are 'reasonable, proportional and enforced in a nondiscriminatory fashion,' according to the story. In sum, considering no evidence showed a U.S. federal agency, including the DOD, was preparing to make COVID-19 vaccinations mandatory for people to visit public spaces, as well as the federal government's limited power in terms of establishing such a mandate, we rate this claim 'False.'

In sum, considering no evidence showed a U.S. federal agency, including the DOD, was preparing to make COVID-19 vaccinations mandatory for people to visit public spaces, as well as the federal government's limited power in terms of establishing such a mandate, we rate this claim 'False.'

Donald Trump said that he will deport all Nigerians if he gets elected president.

Contradiction

In January 2016, a fake quote started circulating online, purportedly uttered by Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump about how he would deport Muslims, Mexicans, and Nigerians if he won the presidency: American Billionaire and Republican Presidential Front-runner, Donald Trump, has shot a subtle warning to the Nigerian Community in the United States, after he said all Nigerians would be made to leave the country 'when he becomes President'. He made the 'threat' during a rally at Wichita, Kansas. According to Donald Trump, Nigerians ad Mexicans have taken all the jobs meant for honest hard working Americans. 'To Make America great again, we need to get rid of the Muslims, Mexicans and the Africans, especially the Nigerians. They take all our jobs, jobs meant for honest hard working Americans, and when we don't give them the jobs, the Muslims blow us up', Trump said. 'We need to get the Africans out. Not the blacks, the Africans. Especially the Nigerians. They're everywhere. I went for a rally in Alaska and met just one African in the entire state. Where was he from? Nigeria! He's in Alaska taking our jobs. They're in Houston taking our jobs. Why can't they stay in their own country? Why? I'll tell you why. Because they are corrupt.' The above-displayed quote appeared on several disreputable web sites in mid-January 2016, but it was originally published by 'FNN' on the web site Payges. While Payges does not include a disclaimer labeling this article as a work of fiction, a discussion on the Nairaland Forum revealed that FNN stood for 'Fake Nigeria News.' Additionally, Trump did not have a rally in Wichita, Kansas, as alleged by the above-quoted article, at any point in January 2016. The quote has also not been recorded by any major publications at any point. In sum, this is nothing more than yet another fictional quote falsely attributed to a politician.

In sum, this is nothing more than yet another fictional quote falsely attributed to a politician.

Marjorie Taylor Greene appeared on 'The Oprah Winfrey Show' in 1997.

Contradiction

On Nov. 4, 2021, TikTok user @andrejhepburn posted a video that appeared to show U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., in the crowd during a taping of 'The Oprah Winfrey Show' in 1997. In the clip, she is supposedly shown stating that the Bible 'clearly states that homosexuality is wrong.' @andrejhepburn Reply to @crazymadviking ♬ Pink Soldiers - 23 The video was viewed close to 200,000 times and received more than 1,500 shares in the first few hours after it was uploaded. This total included a second upload of the video. The top comments on both videos and the likes those comments received showed that the video appeared real to some viewers. However, the truth is that it was digitally altered to display a deepfake of Greene's face superimposed over that of another woman. A slightly faded logo for 'Politifakes' can be seen in the upper-left corner of the clip. While the deepfake video might seem obvious to some readers, it's important to keep in mind that not all social media users are alike. It could be debated that, in recent years, far more obvious bits of misinformation, including satirical content, have been perceived as genuine and shared millions of times. For example, former U.S. President Donald Trump once tweeted a link to a satirical story, apparently believing it was real. In the TikTok video, the sound of the unidentified woman's voice on Oprah's show was also changed. Greene was born in 1974, and would have been about 23 years old in 1997. We found the original video of the exchange on YouTube that showed the real face of the woman who was talking. While Greene did not appear on Oprah's show to say that 'homosexuality is wrong,' she has shared her thoughts about the LGBT community in the past. According to The Guardian, in February 2021, shortly after beginning her first term, Greene posted a sign outside of her office. It read: 'There are TWO genders: MALE & FEMALE. 'Trust the Science!'' The sign was posted in response to a transgender pride flag being displayed across the hallway. In sum, Greene did not say 'homosexuality is wrong' on Oprah's show in 1997. The video was a deepfake. The full transcript of the exchange between the unidentified woman and Oprah from the 1997 episode is below: Oprah: What do you think? Woman: I've seen it in the Bible. It clearly states that homosexuality is wrong. And I feel that you are a powerful woman and you have done so much. And if you are going to represent, represent yourself as a Christian, and then you're going to go on this show and say you also support that, it's, it's 'double standarding.' Oprah: Well, I have a different view of Christian than you do. Ok? (applause) And the God I serve, the God I serve doesn't care whether you're tall or short, or whether you were born Black or Asian or gay. And so, that's just a difference of belief, and I don't expect to change your belief today, because I have, just before I came down here, I'm late today because I was in the makeup room arguing with somebody who was telling me how all gay people are going to hell and now I'm going to hell with all the other gay people for doing, for doing this show. I take full responsibility for my going to hell or heaven. I take full responsibility and I feel that everybody who's concerned about me now going to hell because I'm doing Ellen DeGeneres' show, I think that you all should take that energy and try to create a little heaven here on earth for everybody, and I take full responsibility for it. (applause) I take full responsibility for it. See, I believe God created Ellen. I believe God did that. And again, if Ellen says she's gay, I believe God created her gay. I believe God did that. Woman: (crying) You can't stand up there on, on that show and in front of this whole American society and say that you, that you support that, I mean... Oprah: I support her right to be who she thinks she is. (applause)

In sum, Greene did not say 'homosexuality is wrong' on Oprah's show in 1997. The video was a deepfake. The full transcript of the exchange between the unidentified woman and Oprah from the 1997 episode is below: Oprah: What do you think? Woman: I've seen it in the Bible. It clearly states that homosexuality is wrong. And I feel that you are a powerful woman and you have done so much. And if you are going to represent, represent yourself as a Christian, and then you're going to go on this show and say you also support that, it's, it's 'double standarding.' Oprah: Well, I have a different view of Christian than you do. Ok? (applause) And the God I serve, the God I serve doesn't care whether you're tall or short, or whether you were born Black or Asian or gay. And so, that's just a difference of belief, and I don't expect to change your belief today, because I have, just before I came down here, I'm late today because I was in the makeup room arguing with somebody who was telling me how all gay people are going to hell and now I'm going to hell with all the other gay people for doing, for doing this show. I take full responsibility for my going to hell or heaven. I take full responsibility and I feel that everybody who's concerned about me now going to hell because I'm doing Ellen DeGeneres' show, I think that you all should take that energy and try to create a little heaven here on earth for everybody, and I take full responsibility for it. (applause) I take full responsibility for it. See, I believe God created Ellen. I believe God did that. And again, if Ellen says she's gay, I believe God created her gay. I believe God did that. Woman: (crying) You can't stand up there on, on that show and in front of this whole American society and say that you, that you support that, I mean... Oprah: I support her right to be who she thinks she is. (applause)

Marjorie Taylor Greene appeared on 'The Oprah Winfrey Show' in 1997.

Contradiction

On Nov. 4, 2021, TikTok user @andrejhepburn posted a video that appeared to show U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., in the crowd during a taping of 'The Oprah Winfrey Show' in 1997. In the clip, she is supposedly shown stating that the Bible 'clearly states that homosexuality is wrong.' @andrejhepburn Reply to @crazymadviking ♬ Pink Soldiers - 23 The video was viewed close to 200,000 times and received more than 1,500 shares in the first few hours after it was uploaded. This total included a second upload of the video. The top comments on both videos and the likes those comments received showed that the video appeared real to some viewers. However, the truth is that it was digitally altered to display a deepfake of Greene's face superimposed over that of another woman. A slightly faded logo for 'Politifakes' can be seen in the upper-left corner of the clip. While the deepfake video might seem obvious to some readers, it's important to keep in mind that not all social media users are alike. It could be debated that, in recent years, far more obvious bits of misinformation, including satirical content, have been perceived as genuine and shared millions of times. For example, former U.S. President Donald Trump once tweeted a link to a satirical story, apparently believing it was real. In the TikTok video, the sound of the unidentified woman's voice on Oprah's show was also changed. Greene was born in 1974, and would have been about 23 years old in 1997. We found the original video of the exchange on YouTube that showed the real face of the woman who was talking. While Greene did not appear on Oprah's show to say that 'homosexuality is wrong,' she has shared her thoughts about the LGBT community in the past. According to The Guardian, in February 2021, shortly after beginning her first term, Greene posted a sign outside of her office. It read: 'There are TWO genders: MALE & FEMALE. 'Trust the Science!'' The sign was posted in response to a transgender pride flag being displayed across the hallway. In sum, Greene did not say 'homosexuality is wrong' on Oprah's show in 1997. The video was a deepfake. The full transcript of the exchange between the unidentified woman and Oprah from the 1997 episode is below: Oprah: What do you think? Woman: I've seen it in the Bible. It clearly states that homosexuality is wrong. And I feel that you are a powerful woman and you have done so much. And if you are going to represent, represent yourself as a Christian, and then you're going to go on this show and say you also support that, it's, it's 'double standarding.' Oprah: Well, I have a different view of Christian than you do. Ok? (applause) And the God I serve, the God I serve doesn't care whether you're tall or short, or whether you were born Black or Asian or gay. And so, that's just a difference of belief, and I don't expect to change your belief today, because I have, just before I came down here, I'm late today because I was in the makeup room arguing with somebody who was telling me how all gay people are going to hell and now I'm going to hell with all the other gay people for doing, for doing this show. I take full responsibility for my going to hell or heaven. I take full responsibility and I feel that everybody who's concerned about me now going to hell because I'm doing Ellen DeGeneres' show, I think that you all should take that energy and try to create a little heaven here on earth for everybody, and I take full responsibility for it. (applause) I take full responsibility for it. See, I believe God created Ellen. I believe God did that. And again, if Ellen says she's gay, I believe God created her gay. I believe God did that. Woman: (crying) You can't stand up there on, on that show and in front of this whole American society and say that you, that you support that, I mean... Oprah: I support her right to be who she thinks she is. (applause)

In sum, Greene did not say 'homosexuality is wrong' on Oprah's show in 1997. The video was a deepfake. The full transcript of the exchange between the unidentified woman and Oprah from the 1997 episode is below: Oprah: What do you think? Woman: I've seen it in the Bible. It clearly states that homosexuality is wrong. And I feel that you are a powerful woman and you have done so much. And if you are going to represent, represent yourself as a Christian, and then you're going to go on this show and say you also support that, it's, it's 'double standarding.' Oprah: Well, I have a different view of Christian than you do. Ok? (applause) And the God I serve, the God I serve doesn't care whether you're tall or short, or whether you were born Black or Asian or gay. And so, that's just a difference of belief, and I don't expect to change your belief today, because I have, just before I came down here, I'm late today because I was in the makeup room arguing with somebody who was telling me how all gay people are going to hell and now I'm going to hell with all the other gay people for doing, for doing this show. I take full responsibility for my going to hell or heaven. I take full responsibility and I feel that everybody who's concerned about me now going to hell because I'm doing Ellen DeGeneres' show, I think that you all should take that energy and try to create a little heaven here on earth for everybody, and I take full responsibility for it. (applause) I take full responsibility for it. See, I believe God created Ellen. I believe God did that. And again, if Ellen says she's gay, I believe God created her gay. I believe God did that. Woman: (crying) You can't stand up there on, on that show and in front of this whole American society and say that you, that you support that, I mean... Oprah: I support her right to be who she thinks she is. (applause)

Melinda Gates wore an upside-down cross in broadcast interviews in May 2020 to denounce Christianity.

Contradiction

Melinda Gates has been a frequent target of misinformation campaigns during the COVID-19 coronavirus disease pandemic. So it was perhaps not surprising in May 2020 when her jewelry raised new suspicions among conspiracy theorists that she - the famous philanthropist and partner to Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates - had sold her 'soul to the devil.' In at least three video segments with journalists that posted online between May 7 and May 11 (via Politico, Yahoo! Finance, and NBC's 'Today'), Gates criticized the U.S. federal government's response to the pandemic under U.S. President Donald Trump and discussed the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation's work on finding a vaccine to build people's immunity against COVID-19 to end the crisis. On May 8, Gates tweeted: But it did not appear to be Gates' comments in the video interviews that sparked controversy on social media. Rather, critics fixated on her appearance. She was seen in a series of broadcast interviews wearing a pink blouse, hoop earrings, and a necklace - the latter of which conspiracy theorists believed to have displayed an upside-down or 'inverted' cross that symbolized Gates' alleged allegiance to Satan and denouncement of the Christian faith. A viral Facebook post read: Another popular post, which a YouTuber recited in a May 12 video, said: Roman Catholic Melinda Gates in an interview on TODAY Show pushing hard for a global COVID-19 vaccine was wearing a bright and shiny upside-down cross around her neck. ... Who likes to wear inverted crosses? Satanists, pagans, witches, warlocks, New Agers, most people in Hollywood. The claim is two-pronged: that Gates did in fact wear an upside-down or inverted cross in video interviews, including for NBC's 'Today' show, and that an inverted cross is a symbol of Satanic worship. While unpacking the former, keep in mind that Bill and Melinda Gates have been major targets of misinformation campaigns by anti-vaccine advocates and conspiracy theorists for more than 10 years, a result of their foundation's aggressive research to curb health disparities worldwide via vaccines, or shots that build populations' immunity against certain viruses. Yet a new era of dubious claims involving the billionaire couple surfaced during the COVID-19 pandemic, ever since the coronavirus was first reported in humans in Wuhan, China, in late 2019. Doomsday theorists came up with the idea that the Gateses were trying to 'microchip' or control world populations via a COVID-19 vaccine - a conspiracy theory that surfaced in various forms, including a doctored image that supposedly showed the words 'Center for Global Human Population Reduction' inscribed on a Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation building. For the jewelry claim, though, when asked by Snopes if Melinda Gates owned a necklace with an inverted cross, and if she was wearing it during the May 2020 interviews, representatives of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (which handles most media requests for the couple) did not respond to the inquiry as of this writing. Upon examination of the interview footage on the 'Today' show website, for example, Gates was indeed wearing a necklace that appeared to have a charm in the shape of a cross and one of the cross' arms looked longer than the rest. But here's what makes the answer to the claim murky: It's unclear whether the cross pendant itself had four equilateral arms, like a Greek cross or plus sign, or if it had one longer arm like the Latin cross. For the former theory, it was possible the Greek cross included a rounded clasp to attach the pendant to the necklace chain and that clasp made one of the cross' vertical arms appear longer than it actually was. That was the case in low-resolution photos of Chelsea Clinton, the daughter of former U.S. President Bill Clinton and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, when conspiracy theorists online raised similar questions about her cross-shaped necklace in 2018. A spokesperson for Chelsea Clinton confirmed that she, indeed, sported a 'Greek Cross or an equilateral cross' around her neck on 'rare occasion.' On the other hand, Gates could be wearing a Latin cross, as critics claim. If that's the case, the next questions are these: Did she purposefully wear the cross upside down or did the charm flip unintentionally? Based on the available evidence, we cannot make that call. We can, however, provide context as to why wearing a cross pendant, even one inverted, may or may not be a statement of Gates' ideologies. In several public statements, including a video interview with a reporter for The Guardian in 2012, Gates has identified as a follower of the Catholic Church. The reporter, for example, described Gates as a 'church-going, believing Catholic' and Gates did not refute the claim. That piece of her identity could be the reason for why she wore a necklace with a cross in 2020, or not. Nonetheless, according to Catholic Answers, which defines itself as a 'media ministry' that explains and defends the Catholic faith, even if Gates' cross was upside-down, the piece of jewelry could still be a statement of her devotion to the church. Its website states: The truth of the matter is that the upside down cross (without a corpus, so not a crucifix) is an ancient symbol of St. Peter's crucifixion. Tradition tells us that when St. Peter was martyred, he insisted that he be crucified upside down as he did not believe himself worthy to be crucified in the manner of his Lord. That said, some people believe an upside-down cross is a statement against Jesus Christ, who is revered in Christianity, and in favor of Satan. For example, a 1993 document, titled 'Satanic Cult Awareness' and sponsored by the U.S. Department of Justice's National Institute of Justice, said an upside-down cross is 'blaspheme of the Christian cross' and a symbol that law enforcement and criminal justice agencies should be aware of. On page 40 of the document: But many people who call themselves Satanists reject the inverted cross as an official symbol. According to the Church of Satan, which Encyclopaedia Britannica defines as 'counterculture group founded in the United States in the 1960s,' the group's main symbol is the Sigil of Baphomet, incorporating a pentagram, a goat's head, and Hebrew letters. Literature has long depicted anyone who has embraced Satan and thus rejected Jesus as having embraced the reversed cross as symbolic of that act. Satanists are free to employ any symbols which they feel have resonance, so if such an upside-down cross has personal meaning they could use it. Additionally, for some people, the cross with one longer arm could have no meaning at all. In the words of the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod: Those are people who do not put any significance into using that symbol - it's just the trendy thing. ... It means that when you see someone with an upside-down cross, you may not know what the intended message is until, and unless, you ask that person. In sum, given the fact that an upside-down or inverted cross could mean anything - including a dedication to St. Peter's crucifixion, not necessarily a symbol of allegiance to Satan and denouncement of Christianity - and the fact that Gates has publicly identified herself as a member of the Catholic Church, we rate this claim 'Mostly False,' with the caveat that she did wear a necklace with a cross-shaped pendant for interviews with journalists in 2020 and the position and exact shape of the cross is difficult to discern in available video footage.

In sum, given the fact that an upside-down or inverted cross could mean anything - including a dedication to St. Peter's crucifixion, not necessarily a symbol of allegiance to Satan and denouncement of Christianity - and the fact that Gates has publicly identified herself as a member of the Catholic Church, we rate this claim 'Mostly False,' with the caveat that she did wear a necklace with a cross-shaped pendant for interviews with journalists in 2020 and the position and exact shape of the cross is difficult to discern in available video footage.

Melinda Gates wore an upside-down cross in broadcast interviews in May 2020 to denounce Christianity.

Contradiction

Melinda Gates has been a frequent target of misinformation campaigns during the COVID-19 coronavirus disease pandemic. So it was perhaps not surprising in May 2020 when her jewelry raised new suspicions among conspiracy theorists that she - the famous philanthropist and partner to Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates - had sold her 'soul to the devil.' In at least three video segments with journalists that posted online between May 7 and May 11 (via Politico, Yahoo! Finance, and NBC's 'Today'), Gates criticized the U.S. federal government's response to the pandemic under U.S. President Donald Trump and discussed the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation's work on finding a vaccine to build people's immunity against COVID-19 to end the crisis. On May 8, Gates tweeted: But it did not appear to be Gates' comments in the video interviews that sparked controversy on social media. Rather, critics fixated on her appearance. She was seen in a series of broadcast interviews wearing a pink blouse, hoop earrings, and a necklace - the latter of which conspiracy theorists believed to have displayed an upside-down or 'inverted' cross that symbolized Gates' alleged allegiance to Satan and denouncement of the Christian faith. A viral Facebook post read: Another popular post, which a YouTuber recited in a May 12 video, said: Roman Catholic Melinda Gates in an interview on TODAY Show pushing hard for a global COVID-19 vaccine was wearing a bright and shiny upside-down cross around her neck. ... Who likes to wear inverted crosses? Satanists, pagans, witches, warlocks, New Agers, most people in Hollywood. The claim is two-pronged: that Gates did in fact wear an upside-down or inverted cross in video interviews, including for NBC's 'Today' show, and that an inverted cross is a symbol of Satanic worship. While unpacking the former, keep in mind that Bill and Melinda Gates have been major targets of misinformation campaigns by anti-vaccine advocates and conspiracy theorists for more than 10 years, a result of their foundation's aggressive research to curb health disparities worldwide via vaccines, or shots that build populations' immunity against certain viruses. Yet a new era of dubious claims involving the billionaire couple surfaced during the COVID-19 pandemic, ever since the coronavirus was first reported in humans in Wuhan, China, in late 2019. Doomsday theorists came up with the idea that the Gateses were trying to 'microchip' or control world populations via a COVID-19 vaccine - a conspiracy theory that surfaced in various forms, including a doctored image that supposedly showed the words 'Center for Global Human Population Reduction' inscribed on a Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation building. For the jewelry claim, though, when asked by Snopes if Melinda Gates owned a necklace with an inverted cross, and if she was wearing it during the May 2020 interviews, representatives of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (which handles most media requests for the couple) did not respond to the inquiry as of this writing. Upon examination of the interview footage on the 'Today' show website, for example, Gates was indeed wearing a necklace that appeared to have a charm in the shape of a cross and one of the cross' arms looked longer than the rest. But here's what makes the answer to the claim murky: It's unclear whether the cross pendant itself had four equilateral arms, like a Greek cross or plus sign, or if it had one longer arm like the Latin cross. For the former theory, it was possible the Greek cross included a rounded clasp to attach the pendant to the necklace chain and that clasp made one of the cross' vertical arms appear longer than it actually was. That was the case in low-resolution photos of Chelsea Clinton, the daughter of former U.S. President Bill Clinton and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, when conspiracy theorists online raised similar questions about her cross-shaped necklace in 2018. A spokesperson for Chelsea Clinton confirmed that she, indeed, sported a 'Greek Cross or an equilateral cross' around her neck on 'rare occasion.' On the other hand, Gates could be wearing a Latin cross, as critics claim. If that's the case, the next questions are these: Did she purposefully wear the cross upside down or did the charm flip unintentionally? Based on the available evidence, we cannot make that call. We can, however, provide context as to why wearing a cross pendant, even one inverted, may or may not be a statement of Gates' ideologies. In several public statements, including a video interview with a reporter for The Guardian in 2012, Gates has identified as a follower of the Catholic Church. The reporter, for example, described Gates as a 'church-going, believing Catholic' and Gates did not refute the claim. That piece of her identity could be the reason for why she wore a necklace with a cross in 2020, or not. Nonetheless, according to Catholic Answers, which defines itself as a 'media ministry' that explains and defends the Catholic faith, even if Gates' cross was upside-down, the piece of jewelry could still be a statement of her devotion to the church. Its website states: The truth of the matter is that the upside down cross (without a corpus, so not a crucifix) is an ancient symbol of St. Peter's crucifixion. Tradition tells us that when St. Peter was martyred, he insisted that he be crucified upside down as he did not believe himself worthy to be crucified in the manner of his Lord. That said, some people believe an upside-down cross is a statement against Jesus Christ, who is revered in Christianity, and in favor of Satan. For example, a 1993 document, titled 'Satanic Cult Awareness' and sponsored by the U.S. Department of Justice's National Institute of Justice, said an upside-down cross is 'blaspheme of the Christian cross' and a symbol that law enforcement and criminal justice agencies should be aware of. On page 40 of the document: But many people who call themselves Satanists reject the inverted cross as an official symbol. According to the Church of Satan, which Encyclopaedia Britannica defines as 'counterculture group founded in the United States in the 1960s,' the group's main symbol is the Sigil of Baphomet, incorporating a pentagram, a goat's head, and Hebrew letters. Literature has long depicted anyone who has embraced Satan and thus rejected Jesus as having embraced the reversed cross as symbolic of that act. Satanists are free to employ any symbols which they feel have resonance, so if such an upside-down cross has personal meaning they could use it. Additionally, for some people, the cross with one longer arm could have no meaning at all. In the words of the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod: Those are people who do not put any significance into using that symbol - it's just the trendy thing. ... It means that when you see someone with an upside-down cross, you may not know what the intended message is until, and unless, you ask that person. In sum, given the fact that an upside-down or inverted cross could mean anything - including a dedication to St. Peter's crucifixion, not necessarily a symbol of allegiance to Satan and denouncement of Christianity - and the fact that Gates has publicly identified herself as a member of the Catholic Church, we rate this claim 'Mostly False,' with the caveat that she did wear a necklace with a cross-shaped pendant for interviews with journalists in 2020 and the position and exact shape of the cross is difficult to discern in available video footage.

In sum, given the fact that an upside-down or inverted cross could mean anything - including a dedication to St. Peter's crucifixion, not necessarily a symbol of allegiance to Satan and denouncement of Christianity - and the fact that Gates has publicly identified herself as a member of the Catholic Church, we rate this claim 'Mostly False,' with the caveat that she did wear a necklace with a cross-shaped pendant for interviews with journalists in 2020 and the position and exact shape of the cross is difficult to discern in available video footage.

Melinda Gates wore an upside-down cross in broadcast interviews in May 2020 to denounce Christianity.

Contradiction

Melinda Gates has been a frequent target of misinformation campaigns during the COVID-19 coronavirus disease pandemic. So it was perhaps not surprising in May 2020 when her jewelry raised new suspicions among conspiracy theorists that she - the famous philanthropist and partner to Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates - had sold her 'soul to the devil.' In at least three video segments with journalists that posted online between May 7 and May 11 (via Politico, Yahoo! Finance, and NBC's 'Today'), Gates criticized the U.S. federal government's response to the pandemic under U.S. President Donald Trump and discussed the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation's work on finding a vaccine to build people's immunity against COVID-19 to end the crisis. On May 8, Gates tweeted: But it did not appear to be Gates' comments in the video interviews that sparked controversy on social media. Rather, critics fixated on her appearance. She was seen in a series of broadcast interviews wearing a pink blouse, hoop earrings, and a necklace - the latter of which conspiracy theorists believed to have displayed an upside-down or 'inverted' cross that symbolized Gates' alleged allegiance to Satan and denouncement of the Christian faith. A viral Facebook post read: Another popular post, which a YouTuber recited in a May 12 video, said: Roman Catholic Melinda Gates in an interview on TODAY Show pushing hard for a global COVID-19 vaccine was wearing a bright and shiny upside-down cross around her neck. ... Who likes to wear inverted crosses? Satanists, pagans, witches, warlocks, New Agers, most people in Hollywood. The claim is two-pronged: that Gates did in fact wear an upside-down or inverted cross in video interviews, including for NBC's 'Today' show, and that an inverted cross is a symbol of Satanic worship. While unpacking the former, keep in mind that Bill and Melinda Gates have been major targets of misinformation campaigns by anti-vaccine advocates and conspiracy theorists for more than 10 years, a result of their foundation's aggressive research to curb health disparities worldwide via vaccines, or shots that build populations' immunity against certain viruses. Yet a new era of dubious claims involving the billionaire couple surfaced during the COVID-19 pandemic, ever since the coronavirus was first reported in humans in Wuhan, China, in late 2019. Doomsday theorists came up with the idea that the Gateses were trying to 'microchip' or control world populations via a COVID-19 vaccine - a conspiracy theory that surfaced in various forms, including a doctored image that supposedly showed the words 'Center for Global Human Population Reduction' inscribed on a Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation building. For the jewelry claim, though, when asked by Snopes if Melinda Gates owned a necklace with an inverted cross, and if she was wearing it during the May 2020 interviews, representatives of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (which handles most media requests for the couple) did not respond to the inquiry as of this writing. Upon examination of the interview footage on the 'Today' show website, for example, Gates was indeed wearing a necklace that appeared to have a charm in the shape of a cross and one of the cross' arms looked longer than the rest. But here's what makes the answer to the claim murky: It's unclear whether the cross pendant itself had four equilateral arms, like a Greek cross or plus sign, or if it had one longer arm like the Latin cross. For the former theory, it was possible the Greek cross included a rounded clasp to attach the pendant to the necklace chain and that clasp made one of the cross' vertical arms appear longer than it actually was. That was the case in low-resolution photos of Chelsea Clinton, the daughter of former U.S. President Bill Clinton and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, when conspiracy theorists online raised similar questions about her cross-shaped necklace in 2018. A spokesperson for Chelsea Clinton confirmed that she, indeed, sported a 'Greek Cross or an equilateral cross' around her neck on 'rare occasion.' On the other hand, Gates could be wearing a Latin cross, as critics claim. If that's the case, the next questions are these: Did she purposefully wear the cross upside down or did the charm flip unintentionally? Based on the available evidence, we cannot make that call. We can, however, provide context as to why wearing a cross pendant, even one inverted, may or may not be a statement of Gates' ideologies. In several public statements, including a video interview with a reporter for The Guardian in 2012, Gates has identified as a follower of the Catholic Church. The reporter, for example, described Gates as a 'church-going, believing Catholic' and Gates did not refute the claim. That piece of her identity could be the reason for why she wore a necklace with a cross in 2020, or not. Nonetheless, according to Catholic Answers, which defines itself as a 'media ministry' that explains and defends the Catholic faith, even if Gates' cross was upside-down, the piece of jewelry could still be a statement of her devotion to the church. Its website states: The truth of the matter is that the upside down cross (without a corpus, so not a crucifix) is an ancient symbol of St. Peter's crucifixion. Tradition tells us that when St. Peter was martyred, he insisted that he be crucified upside down as he did not believe himself worthy to be crucified in the manner of his Lord. That said, some people believe an upside-down cross is a statement against Jesus Christ, who is revered in Christianity, and in favor of Satan. For example, a 1993 document, titled 'Satanic Cult Awareness' and sponsored by the U.S. Department of Justice's National Institute of Justice, said an upside-down cross is 'blaspheme of the Christian cross' and a symbol that law enforcement and criminal justice agencies should be aware of. On page 40 of the document: But many people who call themselves Satanists reject the inverted cross as an official symbol. According to the Church of Satan, which Encyclopaedia Britannica defines as 'counterculture group founded in the United States in the 1960s,' the group's main symbol is the Sigil of Baphomet, incorporating a pentagram, a goat's head, and Hebrew letters. Literature has long depicted anyone who has embraced Satan and thus rejected Jesus as having embraced the reversed cross as symbolic of that act. Satanists are free to employ any symbols which they feel have resonance, so if such an upside-down cross has personal meaning they could use it. Additionally, for some people, the cross with one longer arm could have no meaning at all. In the words of the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod: Those are people who do not put any significance into using that symbol - it's just the trendy thing. ... It means that when you see someone with an upside-down cross, you may not know what the intended message is until, and unless, you ask that person. In sum, given the fact that an upside-down or inverted cross could mean anything - including a dedication to St. Peter's crucifixion, not necessarily a symbol of allegiance to Satan and denouncement of Christianity - and the fact that Gates has publicly identified herself as a member of the Catholic Church, we rate this claim 'Mostly False,' with the caveat that she did wear a necklace with a cross-shaped pendant for interviews with journalists in 2020 and the position and exact shape of the cross is difficult to discern in available video footage.

In sum, given the fact that an upside-down or inverted cross could mean anything - including a dedication to St. Peter's crucifixion, not necessarily a symbol of allegiance to Satan and denouncement of Christianity - and the fact that Gates has publicly identified herself as a member of the Catholic Church, we rate this claim 'Mostly False,' with the caveat that she did wear a necklace with a cross-shaped pendant for interviews with journalists in 2020 and the position and exact shape of the cross is difficult to discern in available video footage.

Melinda Gates wore an upside-down cross in broadcast interviews in May 2020 to denounce Christianity.

Contradiction

Melinda Gates has been a frequent target of misinformation campaigns during the COVID-19 coronavirus disease pandemic. So it was perhaps not surprising in May 2020 when her jewelry raised new suspicions among conspiracy theorists that she - the famous philanthropist and partner to Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates - had sold her 'soul to the devil.' In at least three video segments with journalists that posted online between May 7 and May 11 (via Politico, Yahoo! Finance, and NBC's 'Today'), Gates criticized the U.S. federal government's response to the pandemic under U.S. President Donald Trump and discussed the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation's work on finding a vaccine to build people's immunity against COVID-19 to end the crisis. On May 8, Gates tweeted: But it did not appear to be Gates' comments in the video interviews that sparked controversy on social media. Rather, critics fixated on her appearance. She was seen in a series of broadcast interviews wearing a pink blouse, hoop earrings, and a necklace - the latter of which conspiracy theorists believed to have displayed an upside-down or 'inverted' cross that symbolized Gates' alleged allegiance to Satan and denouncement of the Christian faith. A viral Facebook post read: Another popular post, which a YouTuber recited in a May 12 video, said: Roman Catholic Melinda Gates in an interview on TODAY Show pushing hard for a global COVID-19 vaccine was wearing a bright and shiny upside-down cross around her neck. ... Who likes to wear inverted crosses? Satanists, pagans, witches, warlocks, New Agers, most people in Hollywood. The claim is two-pronged: that Gates did in fact wear an upside-down or inverted cross in video interviews, including for NBC's 'Today' show, and that an inverted cross is a symbol of Satanic worship. While unpacking the former, keep in mind that Bill and Melinda Gates have been major targets of misinformation campaigns by anti-vaccine advocates and conspiracy theorists for more than 10 years, a result of their foundation's aggressive research to curb health disparities worldwide via vaccines, or shots that build populations' immunity against certain viruses. Yet a new era of dubious claims involving the billionaire couple surfaced during the COVID-19 pandemic, ever since the coronavirus was first reported in humans in Wuhan, China, in late 2019. Doomsday theorists came up with the idea that the Gateses were trying to 'microchip' or control world populations via a COVID-19 vaccine - a conspiracy theory that surfaced in various forms, including a doctored image that supposedly showed the words 'Center for Global Human Population Reduction' inscribed on a Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation building. For the jewelry claim, though, when asked by Snopes if Melinda Gates owned a necklace with an inverted cross, and if she was wearing it during the May 2020 interviews, representatives of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (which handles most media requests for the couple) did not respond to the inquiry as of this writing. Upon examination of the interview footage on the 'Today' show website, for example, Gates was indeed wearing a necklace that appeared to have a charm in the shape of a cross and one of the cross' arms looked longer than the rest. But here's what makes the answer to the claim murky: It's unclear whether the cross pendant itself had four equilateral arms, like a Greek cross or plus sign, or if it had one longer arm like the Latin cross. For the former theory, it was possible the Greek cross included a rounded clasp to attach the pendant to the necklace chain and that clasp made one of the cross' vertical arms appear longer than it actually was. That was the case in low-resolution photos of Chelsea Clinton, the daughter of former U.S. President Bill Clinton and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, when conspiracy theorists online raised similar questions about her cross-shaped necklace in 2018. A spokesperson for Chelsea Clinton confirmed that she, indeed, sported a 'Greek Cross or an equilateral cross' around her neck on 'rare occasion.' On the other hand, Gates could be wearing a Latin cross, as critics claim. If that's the case, the next questions are these: Did she purposefully wear the cross upside down or did the charm flip unintentionally? Based on the available evidence, we cannot make that call. We can, however, provide context as to why wearing a cross pendant, even one inverted, may or may not be a statement of Gates' ideologies. In several public statements, including a video interview with a reporter for The Guardian in 2012, Gates has identified as a follower of the Catholic Church. The reporter, for example, described Gates as a 'church-going, believing Catholic' and Gates did not refute the claim. That piece of her identity could be the reason for why she wore a necklace with a cross in 2020, or not. Nonetheless, according to Catholic Answers, which defines itself as a 'media ministry' that explains and defends the Catholic faith, even if Gates' cross was upside-down, the piece of jewelry could still be a statement of her devotion to the church. Its website states: The truth of the matter is that the upside down cross (without a corpus, so not a crucifix) is an ancient symbol of St. Peter's crucifixion. Tradition tells us that when St. Peter was martyred, he insisted that he be crucified upside down as he did not believe himself worthy to be crucified in the manner of his Lord. That said, some people believe an upside-down cross is a statement against Jesus Christ, who is revered in Christianity, and in favor of Satan. For example, a 1993 document, titled 'Satanic Cult Awareness' and sponsored by the U.S. Department of Justice's National Institute of Justice, said an upside-down cross is 'blaspheme of the Christian cross' and a symbol that law enforcement and criminal justice agencies should be aware of. On page 40 of the document: But many people who call themselves Satanists reject the inverted cross as an official symbol. According to the Church of Satan, which Encyclopaedia Britannica defines as 'counterculture group founded in the United States in the 1960s,' the group's main symbol is the Sigil of Baphomet, incorporating a pentagram, a goat's head, and Hebrew letters. Literature has long depicted anyone who has embraced Satan and thus rejected Jesus as having embraced the reversed cross as symbolic of that act. Satanists are free to employ any symbols which they feel have resonance, so if such an upside-down cross has personal meaning they could use it. Additionally, for some people, the cross with one longer arm could have no meaning at all. In the words of the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod: Those are people who do not put any significance into using that symbol - it's just the trendy thing. ... It means that when you see someone with an upside-down cross, you may not know what the intended message is until, and unless, you ask that person. In sum, given the fact that an upside-down or inverted cross could mean anything - including a dedication to St. Peter's crucifixion, not necessarily a symbol of allegiance to Satan and denouncement of Christianity - and the fact that Gates has publicly identified herself as a member of the Catholic Church, we rate this claim 'Mostly False,' with the caveat that she did wear a necklace with a cross-shaped pendant for interviews with journalists in 2020 and the position and exact shape of the cross is difficult to discern in available video footage.

In sum, given the fact that an upside-down or inverted cross could mean anything - including a dedication to St. Peter's crucifixion, not necessarily a symbol of allegiance to Satan and denouncement of Christianity - and the fact that Gates has publicly identified herself as a member of the Catholic Church, we rate this claim 'Mostly False,' with the caveat that she did wear a necklace with a cross-shaped pendant for interviews with journalists in 2020 and the position and exact shape of the cross is difficult to discern in available video footage.

A video shows 300 children who were found frozen alive for purposes of organ harvesting.

Contradiction

A video of a child covered by ice in a small box has been circulating online for several years attached to a number of different rumors. In October 2019, the video went viral again when it was shared on Twitter along with the claim: 'Around 300 hundred kids found frozen alive for the purposes of selling organs for transplantation.' VIEWER WARNING: The video at the center of this rumor contains images of a dead child and may not be suitable for all viewers. This video (posted below) has also been shared with other claims about this child. When it first went viral in 2017, it was attached to a rumor holding that the boy climbed into the cooler while his parents were packing vegetables in ice. The boy's parents didn't notice, closed the lid, and the boy froze to death. Here's the video. Again, this may not suitable for all viewers: Around 300 hundred kids found frozen alive for the purposes of selling organs for transplantation. This is only one of the many Criminal Groups caught. Poor kids! What a pain for parents/relatives! pic.twitter.com/rWw01GYll9 - Navai Mammadov (@NavaiBaku) October 8, 2019 This video does not show one of nearly 300 children who was found frozen alive for the purposes of organ harvesting, nor does it show a child who died climbing into a cooler unbeknownst to his parents. The portion of the video showing the child covered in ice was taken in the Guangdong province of China in the summer of 2017. Police looked into this video after it started circulating attached to rumors concerning criminal behavior. They found that the boy had accidentally drowned and that the family packed his body in ice, due to the high temperatures of summer, in order to transport him back home for burial. A Weibo message posted by the Public Security Bureau of Yiyang City, Hunan province explained (translated via Google and edited for clarity): 'The child in the video... died in the waters of relatives in Guangzhou. Due to the heat in summer, the family put the body into a foam box with ice cubes and took them home to bury them.' This video shows a family grieving over a little boy who accidentally drowned. It does not show criminal activity related to organ harvesting. The Chinese news outlet The Paper reported: After verifying to the command center of the Liuzhou Public Security Bureau, the jurisdiction and relevant departments, the districts in our city have not received any warning that the traffickers will freeze the children. Therefore, the above information is a rumor. It should also be noted that the viral video shown above contains a few jarring edits. The first 15 seconds, in fact, which show people gathered near a body of water and then two people on the ground getting beat up, appears to come from an entirely separate incident. Zhejiang Online reported in 2017 that the first portion of this video actually shows an unrelated incident in the town of Shaojiaqiaozhen in the Chinese province Guizhou in which two men were beat up in December 2017 after being accused of attempting to defraud elderly people: On December 14, 2017, Wang and Lumou and other four people went to the triangle dam village of Shaojiaqiao Town to sell plaster to middle-aged and elderly people. The people in the village of the dam were mistaken for fraud and theft. Beaten. Someone took a live video and posted it online, rumoring that 'the gangsters are robbing children and being besieged.' The fact that this video features footage from at least two different incidents and has been shared with a variety of unfounded rumors should immediately raise some red flags for viewers. The claim that this video shows a child who was frozen alive for the purposes of harvesting organs is unsubstantiated and appears to have been made up out of whole cloth. The portion of the video showing a child covered in ice in a small box actually shows a family grieving as they prepared this child for burial after he accidentally drowned.

in summer, the family put the body into a foam box with ice cubes and took them home to bury them.' This video shows a family grieving over a little boy who accidentally drowned. It does not show criminal activity related to organ harvesting. The Chinese news outlet The Paper reported: After verifying to the command center of the Liuzhou Public Security Bureau, the jurisdiction and relevant departments, the districts in our city have not received any warning that the traffickers will freeze the children. Therefore, the above information is a rumor. It should also be noted that the viral video shown above contains a few jarring edits. The first 15 seconds, in fact, which show people gathered near a body of water and then two people on the ground getting beat up, appears to come from an entirely separate incident. Zhejiang Online reported in 2017 that the first portion of this video actually shows an unrelated incident in the town of Shaojiaqiaozhen in the Chinese province Guizhou in which two men were beat up in December 2017 after being accused of attempting to defraud elderly people: On December 14, 2017, Wang and Lumou and other four people went to the triangle dam village of Shaojiaqiao Town to sell plaster to middle-aged and elderly people. The people in the village of the dam were mistaken for fraud and theft. Beaten. Someone took a live video and posted it online, rumoring that 'the gangsters are robbing children and being besieged.' The fact that this video features footage from at least two different incidents and has been shared with a variety of unfounded rumors should immediately raise some red flags for viewers. The claim that this video shows a child who was frozen alive for the purposes of harvesting organs is unsubstantiated and appears to have been made up out of whole cloth. The portion of the video showing a child covered in ice in a small box actually shows a family grieving as they prepared this child for burial after he accidentally drowned.

A video shows 300 children who were found frozen alive for purposes of organ harvesting.

Contradiction

A video of a child covered by ice in a small box has been circulating online for several years attached to a number of different rumors. In October 2019, the video went viral again when it was shared on Twitter along with the claim: 'Around 300 hundred kids found frozen alive for the purposes of selling organs for transplantation.' VIEWER WARNING: The video at the center of this rumor contains images of a dead child and may not be suitable for all viewers. This video (posted below) has also been shared with other claims about this child. When it first went viral in 2017, it was attached to a rumor holding that the boy climbed into the cooler while his parents were packing vegetables in ice. The boy's parents didn't notice, closed the lid, and the boy froze to death. Here's the video. Again, this may not suitable for all viewers: Around 300 hundred kids found frozen alive for the purposes of selling organs for transplantation. This is only one of the many Criminal Groups caught. Poor kids! What a pain for parents/relatives! pic.twitter.com/rWw01GYll9 - Navai Mammadov (@NavaiBaku) October 8, 2019 This video does not show one of nearly 300 children who was found frozen alive for the purposes of organ harvesting, nor does it show a child who died climbing into a cooler unbeknownst to his parents. The portion of the video showing the child covered in ice was taken in the Guangdong province of China in the summer of 2017. Police looked into this video after it started circulating attached to rumors concerning criminal behavior. They found that the boy had accidentally drowned and that the family packed his body in ice, due to the high temperatures of summer, in order to transport him back home for burial. A Weibo message posted by the Public Security Bureau of Yiyang City, Hunan province explained (translated via Google and edited for clarity): 'The child in the video... died in the waters of relatives in Guangzhou. Due to the heat in summer, the family put the body into a foam box with ice cubes and took them home to bury them.' This video shows a family grieving over a little boy who accidentally drowned. It does not show criminal activity related to organ harvesting. The Chinese news outlet The Paper reported: After verifying to the command center of the Liuzhou Public Security Bureau, the jurisdiction and relevant departments, the districts in our city have not received any warning that the traffickers will freeze the children. Therefore, the above information is a rumor. It should also be noted that the viral video shown above contains a few jarring edits. The first 15 seconds, in fact, which show people gathered near a body of water and then two people on the ground getting beat up, appears to come from an entirely separate incident. Zhejiang Online reported in 2017 that the first portion of this video actually shows an unrelated incident in the town of Shaojiaqiaozhen in the Chinese province Guizhou in which two men were beat up in December 2017 after being accused of attempting to defraud elderly people: On December 14, 2017, Wang and Lumou and other four people went to the triangle dam village of Shaojiaqiao Town to sell plaster to middle-aged and elderly people. The people in the village of the dam were mistaken for fraud and theft. Beaten. Someone took a live video and posted it online, rumoring that 'the gangsters are robbing children and being besieged.' The fact that this video features footage from at least two different incidents and has been shared with a variety of unfounded rumors should immediately raise some red flags for viewers. The claim that this video shows a child who was frozen alive for the purposes of harvesting organs is unsubstantiated and appears to have been made up out of whole cloth. The portion of the video showing a child covered in ice in a small box actually shows a family grieving as they prepared this child for burial after he accidentally drowned.

in summer, the family put the body into a foam box with ice cubes and took them home to bury them.' This video shows a family grieving over a little boy who accidentally drowned. It does not show criminal activity related to organ harvesting. The Chinese news outlet The Paper reported: After verifying to the command center of the Liuzhou Public Security Bureau, the jurisdiction and relevant departments, the districts in our city have not received any warning that the traffickers will freeze the children. Therefore, the above information is a rumor. It should also be noted that the viral video shown above contains a few jarring edits. The first 15 seconds, in fact, which show people gathered near a body of water and then two people on the ground getting beat up, appears to come from an entirely separate incident. Zhejiang Online reported in 2017 that the first portion of this video actually shows an unrelated incident in the town of Shaojiaqiaozhen in the Chinese province Guizhou in which two men were beat up in December 2017 after being accused of attempting to defraud elderly people: On December 14, 2017, Wang and Lumou and other four people went to the triangle dam village of Shaojiaqiao Town to sell plaster to middle-aged and elderly people. The people in the village of the dam were mistaken for fraud and theft. Beaten. Someone took a live video and posted it online, rumoring that 'the gangsters are robbing children and being besieged.' The fact that this video features footage from at least two different incidents and has been shared with a variety of unfounded rumors should immediately raise some red flags for viewers. The claim that this video shows a child who was frozen alive for the purposes of harvesting organs is unsubstantiated and appears to have been made up out of whole cloth. The portion of the video showing a child covered in ice in a small box actually shows a family grieving as they prepared this child for burial after he accidentally drowned.

A video shows 300 children who were found frozen alive for purposes of organ harvesting.

Contradiction

A video of a child covered by ice in a small box has been circulating online for several years attached to a number of different rumors. In October 2019, the video went viral again when it was shared on Twitter along with the claim: 'Around 300 hundred kids found frozen alive for the purposes of selling organs for transplantation.' VIEWER WARNING: The video at the center of this rumor contains images of a dead child and may not be suitable for all viewers. This video (posted below) has also been shared with other claims about this child. When it first went viral in 2017, it was attached to a rumor holding that the boy climbed into the cooler while his parents were packing vegetables in ice. The boy's parents didn't notice, closed the lid, and the boy froze to death. Here's the video. Again, this may not suitable for all viewers: Around 300 hundred kids found frozen alive for the purposes of selling organs for transplantation. This is only one of the many Criminal Groups caught. Poor kids! What a pain for parents/relatives! pic.twitter.com/rWw01GYll9 - Navai Mammadov (@NavaiBaku) October 8, 2019 This video does not show one of nearly 300 children who was found frozen alive for the purposes of organ harvesting, nor does it show a child who died climbing into a cooler unbeknownst to his parents. The portion of the video showing the child covered in ice was taken in the Guangdong province of China in the summer of 2017. Police looked into this video after it started circulating attached to rumors concerning criminal behavior. They found that the boy had accidentally drowned and that the family packed his body in ice, due to the high temperatures of summer, in order to transport him back home for burial. A Weibo message posted by the Public Security Bureau of Yiyang City, Hunan province explained (translated via Google and edited for clarity): 'The child in the video... died in the waters of relatives in Guangzhou. Due to the heat in summer, the family put the body into a foam box with ice cubes and took them home to bury them.' This video shows a family grieving over a little boy who accidentally drowned. It does not show criminal activity related to organ harvesting. The Chinese news outlet The Paper reported: After verifying to the command center of the Liuzhou Public Security Bureau, the jurisdiction and relevant departments, the districts in our city have not received any warning that the traffickers will freeze the children. Therefore, the above information is a rumor. It should also be noted that the viral video shown above contains a few jarring edits. The first 15 seconds, in fact, which show people gathered near a body of water and then two people on the ground getting beat up, appears to come from an entirely separate incident. Zhejiang Online reported in 2017 that the first portion of this video actually shows an unrelated incident in the town of Shaojiaqiaozhen in the Chinese province Guizhou in which two men were beat up in December 2017 after being accused of attempting to defraud elderly people: On December 14, 2017, Wang and Lumou and other four people went to the triangle dam village of Shaojiaqiao Town to sell plaster to middle-aged and elderly people. The people in the village of the dam were mistaken for fraud and theft. Beaten. Someone took a live video and posted it online, rumoring that 'the gangsters are robbing children and being besieged.' The fact that this video features footage from at least two different incidents and has been shared with a variety of unfounded rumors should immediately raise some red flags for viewers. The claim that this video shows a child who was frozen alive for the purposes of harvesting organs is unsubstantiated and appears to have been made up out of whole cloth. The portion of the video showing a child covered in ice in a small box actually shows a family grieving as they prepared this child for burial after he accidentally drowned.

in summer, the family put the body into a foam box with ice cubes and took them home to bury them.' This video shows a family grieving over a little boy who accidentally drowned. It does not show criminal activity related to organ harvesting. The Chinese news outlet The Paper reported: After verifying to the command center of the Liuzhou Public Security Bureau, the jurisdiction and relevant departments, the districts in our city have not received any warning that the traffickers will freeze the children. Therefore, the above information is a rumor. It should also be noted that the viral video shown above contains a few jarring edits. The first 15 seconds, in fact, which show people gathered near a body of water and then two people on the ground getting beat up, appears to come from an entirely separate incident. Zhejiang Online reported in 2017 that the first portion of this video actually shows an unrelated incident in the town of Shaojiaqiaozhen in the Chinese province Guizhou in which two men were beat up in December 2017 after being accused of attempting to defraud elderly people: On December 14, 2017, Wang and Lumou and other four people went to the triangle dam village of Shaojiaqiao Town to sell plaster to middle-aged and elderly people. The people in the village of the dam were mistaken for fraud and theft. Beaten. Someone took a live video and posted it online, rumoring that 'the gangsters are robbing children and being besieged.' The fact that this video features footage from at least two different incidents and has been shared with a variety of unfounded rumors should immediately raise some red flags for viewers. The claim that this video shows a child who was frozen alive for the purposes of harvesting organs is unsubstantiated and appears to have been made up out of whole cloth. The portion of the video showing a child covered in ice in a small box actually shows a family grieving as they prepared this child for burial after he accidentally drowned.

A video shows 300 children who were found frozen alive for purposes of organ harvesting.

Contradiction

A video of a child covered by ice in a small box has been circulating online for several years attached to a number of different rumors. In October 2019, the video went viral again when it was shared on Twitter along with the claim: 'Around 300 hundred kids found frozen alive for the purposes of selling organs for transplantation.' VIEWER WARNING: The video at the center of this rumor contains images of a dead child and may not be suitable for all viewers. This video (posted below) has also been shared with other claims about this child. When it first went viral in 2017, it was attached to a rumor holding that the boy climbed into the cooler while his parents were packing vegetables in ice. The boy's parents didn't notice, closed the lid, and the boy froze to death. Here's the video. Again, this may not suitable for all viewers: Around 300 hundred kids found frozen alive for the purposes of selling organs for transplantation. This is only one of the many Criminal Groups caught. Poor kids! What a pain for parents/relatives! pic.twitter.com/rWw01GYll9 - Navai Mammadov (@NavaiBaku) October 8, 2019 This video does not show one of nearly 300 children who was found frozen alive for the purposes of organ harvesting, nor does it show a child who died climbing into a cooler unbeknownst to his parents. The portion of the video showing the child covered in ice was taken in the Guangdong province of China in the summer of 2017. Police looked into this video after it started circulating attached to rumors concerning criminal behavior. They found that the boy had accidentally drowned and that the family packed his body in ice, due to the high temperatures of summer, in order to transport him back home for burial. A Weibo message posted by the Public Security Bureau of Yiyang City, Hunan province explained (translated via Google and edited for clarity): 'The child in the video... died in the waters of relatives in Guangzhou. Due to the heat in summer, the family put the body into a foam box with ice cubes and took them home to bury them.' This video shows a family grieving over a little boy who accidentally drowned. It does not show criminal activity related to organ harvesting. The Chinese news outlet The Paper reported: After verifying to the command center of the Liuzhou Public Security Bureau, the jurisdiction and relevant departments, the districts in our city have not received any warning that the traffickers will freeze the children. Therefore, the above information is a rumor. It should also be noted that the viral video shown above contains a few jarring edits. The first 15 seconds, in fact, which show people gathered near a body of water and then two people on the ground getting beat up, appears to come from an entirely separate incident. Zhejiang Online reported in 2017 that the first portion of this video actually shows an unrelated incident in the town of Shaojiaqiaozhen in the Chinese province Guizhou in which two men were beat up in December 2017 after being accused of attempting to defraud elderly people: On December 14, 2017, Wang and Lumou and other four people went to the triangle dam village of Shaojiaqiao Town to sell plaster to middle-aged and elderly people. The people in the village of the dam were mistaken for fraud and theft. Beaten. Someone took a live video and posted it online, rumoring that 'the gangsters are robbing children and being besieged.' The fact that this video features footage from at least two different incidents and has been shared with a variety of unfounded rumors should immediately raise some red flags for viewers. The claim that this video shows a child who was frozen alive for the purposes of harvesting organs is unsubstantiated and appears to have been made up out of whole cloth. The portion of the video showing a child covered in ice in a small box actually shows a family grieving as they prepared this child for burial after he accidentally drowned.

in summer, the family put the body into a foam box with ice cubes and took them home to bury them.' This video shows a family grieving over a little boy who accidentally drowned. It does not show criminal activity related to organ harvesting. The Chinese news outlet The Paper reported: After verifying to the command center of the Liuzhou Public Security Bureau, the jurisdiction and relevant departments, the districts in our city have not received any warning that the traffickers will freeze the children. Therefore, the above information is a rumor. It should also be noted that the viral video shown above contains a few jarring edits. The first 15 seconds, in fact, which show people gathered near a body of water and then two people on the ground getting beat up, appears to come from an entirely separate incident. Zhejiang Online reported in 2017 that the first portion of this video actually shows an unrelated incident in the town of Shaojiaqiaozhen in the Chinese province Guizhou in which two men were beat up in December 2017 after being accused of attempting to defraud elderly people: On December 14, 2017, Wang and Lumou and other four people went to the triangle dam village of Shaojiaqiao Town to sell plaster to middle-aged and elderly people. The people in the village of the dam were mistaken for fraud and theft. Beaten. Someone took a live video and posted it online, rumoring that 'the gangsters are robbing children and being besieged.' The fact that this video features footage from at least two different incidents and has been shared with a variety of unfounded rumors should immediately raise some red flags for viewers. The claim that this video shows a child who was frozen alive for the purposes of harvesting organs is unsubstantiated and appears to have been made up out of whole cloth. The portion of the video showing a child covered in ice in a small box actually shows a family grieving as they prepared this child for burial after he accidentally drowned.

Joe Biden is wanted in Ukraine on 'Class A felony charges.

Contradiction

Since at least November 2020, social media users have copied and pasted a sentence about U.S. President Joe Biden purportedly being a wanted felon in Ukraine. The posts continued to appear well into 2021 and read: 'Ukraine has now listed Joe Biden as wanted on Class A felony charges.' The posts were often accompanied by a May 2020 video from the far-right One America News Network (OAN): In the video, OAN's chief White House correspondent Chanel Rion said that 'a Ukrainian Court ordered Joe Biden to be formally listed in a criminal case.' However, this news report was misleading. Biden was not 'listed as [a] criminal suspect' as the headline claimed. Further, as AFP confirmed, the OAN story mentioned nothing about 'Class A felony charges' or Biden being a wanted felon in Ukraine as the social media posts claimed. 2016 The story all started in 2016, when Biden was vice president. At the time, he allegedly fired Ukraine's chief prosecutor Viktor Shokin. The Associated Press reported that Shokin had been 'widely accused of doing nothing to combat Ukraine's entrenched corruption.' 2019 In December 2019, U.S. President Donald Trump was impeached for the first time by the U.S. House of Representatives, but later acquitted by the U.S. Senate. The basis for the impeachment was a phone call from July 2019. Audio of the call revealed that Trump 'repeatedly urged' Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to investigate Biden for the Shokin ouster. The BBC published that the phone call 'came shortly after Mr. Trump had blocked the release of military aid to Ukraine.' It also reported that 'a senior official later testified the president had made clear the release of this aid was conditional on Mr. Biden being investigated,' something that the White House denied. 2020 An investigation was 'launched in February [2020] after the ousted prosecutor, Shokin, appealed to a court,' NBC News reported. The case was later closed in November. Days after it was closed, the social media posts in question began to appear with the misleading OAN video, falsely claiming that 'Ukraine has now listed Joe Biden' as a wanted felon on 'Class A felony charges.' However, the most important detail here might be the fact that Ukrainian law allows anyone to go to court to simply request an investigation. This even includes when there's an 'absence of evidence,' as NBC News reported in November: Ukrainian authorities have closed a criminal probe into Joe Biden, who was accused of improperly forcing the ouster of the country's prosecutor general in 2016, a police spokesperson said. The investigation was launched in February after the ousted prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, appealed to a court. Under Ukrainian law, anyone can go to court to request an investigation if the State Investigative Bureau declines to open one on its own. The courts overwhelmingly order law enforcement to launch criminal cases even in the absence of evidence, according to Vitaly Shabunin, the co-founder of the Anti-Corruption Action Center, a Kyiv-based watchdog group. In sum, Biden was not a wanted felon in Ukraine, nor was he 'wanted on Class A felony charges.'

In sum, Biden was not a wanted felon in Ukraine, nor was he 'wanted on Class A felony charges.'

A double standard was at play in the FBI's raid of the office of Donald Trump's lawyer but not Bill Clinton's.

Contradiction

A popular meme in March 2019 questioned why Bill Clinton had 'paid Paula Jones $850K to go away' yet the FBI hadn't raided his lawyer's office. The meme was an obvious reference to two completely unrelated issues separated by decades: a 1994 lawsuit involving Clinton and a search warrant executed by the FBI in April 2018 at the office of President Donald Trump's attorney, Michael Cohen. In short, the major differences in the cases referenced by the meme - one of which involved an FBI raid on a lawyer's office and the other not - were as follows: Clinton openly paid Jones $850,000 to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit well after he became president and well after Jones had had a chance to air her allegations to the public, press, and court system, while Trump secretly used an intermediary to pay hush money to porn actress Stormy Daniels just ahead of a presidential election in order to keep her allegations that she had an affair with him from reaching the public and influencing the election results against him. Nothing Clinton did in settling Jones' civil lawsuit was illegal (or even potentially illegal), but Trump's payment of hush money to Daniels through his lawyer was possibly an illegal act on the part of Trump and/or Cohen, hence the raid on the latter's office but not the office of Clinton's lawyer. The Clinton-Jones Case On 6 May 1994, Jones, a former Arkansas state employee, filed a sexual harassment lawsuit against Clinton just days before the statute of limitations would have expired. In her lawsuit, she maintained that on 8 May 1991, she was working the registration desk at Excelsior Hotel in Little Rock, Arkansas, where the Third Annual Governor's Quality Management Conference was being held, an event Bill Clinton (then governor of Arkansas) attended to deliver a speech. Jones alleged that an Arkansas state trooper, Danny Ferguson, approached her at the registration desk, told her that Clinton would like to meet with her, and escorted her to a business suite in the hotel where Clinton was staying. According to Jones, once she entered Clinton's hotel suite he complimented her on her physical appearance, put his hand on her leg, attempted to kiss her on the neck, asked her if she was married, and finally lowered his trousers to expose his erect penis and asked Jones to 'kiss it.' When Jones rebuffed Clinton's advances, she said, he told her to 'keep this between ourselves' and suggested that, in her words, he 'could damage her in her job and even jeopardize her employment.' Jones did not publicly discuss the incident until The American Spectator referenced it in a January 1994 article, apparently based on information provided by Trooper Ferguson: The American Spectator account asserts that a woman by the name of 'Paula' told an unnamed trooper (obviously Defendant Ferguson), who had escorted 'Paula' to Clinton's hotel room, that 'she was available to be Clinton's regular girlfriend if he so desired,' thus implying a consummated and satisfying sexual encounter with Clinton, as well as a willingness to continue a sexual relationship with him. These assertions are untrue. The American Spectator account also asserted that the troopers' 'official' duties included facilitating Clinton's cheating on his wife ... Since Jones ('Paula') was one of the women preyed upon by Clinton and his troopers, including by Defendant Ferguson, in the manner described above, those who read this magazine account could conclude falsely that Jones ('Paula') had a sexual relationship and affair with Clinton. Jones' reputation within her community was thus seriously damaged. Several months later, Jones filed her lawsuit against Clinton and Ferguson, seeking a total of $750,000 in compensation for damages and attorneys' fees on counts of sexual harassment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and defamation. The issue of whether Jones could sue a sitting president went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, who upheld an appellate court decision that 'the President, like all other government officials, is subject to the same laws that apply to all other members of our society,' and allowed Jones' case to proceed. However, Judge Susan Webber Wright of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas dismissed the lawsuit on 1 April 1998, holding that 'the governor's alleged conduct does not constitute sexual assault,' that 'plaintiff's allegations fall far short of the rigorous standards for establishing a claim of outrage under Arkansas law,' that 'plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that she has a case worthy of submitting to a jury,' and that 'there are no genuine issues for trial in this case.' When it came to light a few months later that Clinton had lied under oath about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky during proceedings in Jones' lawsuit, Jones filed an appeal to reverse the dismissal and have her claims reinstated. On 13 November 1998, Clinton settled the matter by offering to pay Jones $850,000 in exchange for her agreement to drop her appeal, without admitting to or apologizing for the conduct alleged by Jones. The Trump-Daniels Case Porn actress Daniels (the stage name of Stephanie Clifford) said she first met Trump at a celebrity golf tournament in Nevada in July 2006. The two engaged in sex in Trump's hotel room, she claimed, and continued an 'intimate relationship' into the following year. Daniels discussed her relationship with Trump in a 2011 interview for In Touch magazine, but the interview was not published at that time, reportedly because Trump's personal attorney, Michael Cohen, threatened to sue over it when the magazine reached out to ask for comment. In January 2018, the Wall Street Journal reported that Trump's personal attorney, Cohen, had arranged to pay Daniels $130,000 just weeks before the 2016 U.S. presidential election in exchange for her signing a nondisclosure agreement related to her alleged 2006 affair with Trump. The following month, Cohen confirmed that $130,000 had been paid to Daniels, but he maintained that he had used his personal funds for the payment, and that 'Neither the Trump Organization nor the Trump campaign was a party to the transaction with Ms. Clifford, and neither reimbursed me for the payment, either directly or indirectly.' On 5 April 2018, Trump denied to reporters that he knew about the payment to Daniels. When pressed about why the payment had been made, Trump replied, 'You'll have to ask Michael Cohen' and asserted he didn't know where the $130,000 had come from. Four days later, acting on a warrant from federal prosecutors in New York's Southern District obtained in part on a referral from special counsel Robert Mueller's office, FBI agents seized a variety of material from Cohen's New York City office, home, and hotel room, including documents related to Cohen's payment to Daniels and to Karen McDougal, another woman who had alleged an affair with Trump. A month later, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, now a member of Trump's legal team, said that Trump had personally repaid Cohen for the $130,000 payment to Daniels, and that the reimbursement had been 'funneled through a law firm.' The following day, Trump contradicted his earlier claim that he didn't know about the payment by acknowledging that he had repaid Cohen, but he asserted the money 'had nothing to do with the campaign.' In August 2018, Cohen pleaded guilty to eight charges, including five counts of tax evasion, one count of making a false statement to a financial institution, one count of being a 'willful cause' of an unlawful corporate contribution, and one count of making an excessive campaign contribution, the latter two stemming from the 'hush money' payments made to Daniels and McDougal. Prosecutors held that the payments made by Cohen violated federal campaign finance laws because they were meant to benefit the campaign but did not come from campaign contributions and were not reported to the Federal Election Commission (FEC). The payments therefore constituted illegal in-kind contributions to the Trump campaign that violated laws limiting such donations to $2,700 and requiring their disclosure to the FEC. Whether Trump himself could be charged with engaging in a criminal scheme to violate campaign finance laws for his involvement in the hush money payments is still a matter of legal debate, but the issue took a dramatic turn in February 2019 when Cohen revealed before Congress that he was paid reimbursement for the hush money directly from Trump's personal bank account after Trump became president. 'Cohen's public testimony directly implicates Trump in serious campaign finance violations,' former FEC General Counsel Lawrence Noble told the Washington Post. 'Assuming Cohen is telling the truth about the purpose of the checks, the checks are documentary evidence supporting the allegation that Trump had Cohen pay Daniels $135,000 in hush money and then reimbursed Cohen.' Conclusion All in all, events proved the FBI had good reason to raid Cohen's office, as they gathered evidence of multiple federal crimes (beyond just campaign finance violations) to which Cohen pleaded guilty. Bill Clinton's payment to Paula Jones was a settlement of a civil lawsuit that did not involve any criminal matter or criminal wrongdoing, and thus it was of no legitimate interest to law enforcement. The only commonality between the two cases was that they involved payments by politicians to women, but for very different reasons and circumstances.

Conclusion All in all, events proved the FBI had good reason to raid Cohen's office, as they gathered evidence of multiple federal crimes (beyond just campaign finance violations) to which Cohen pleaded guilty. Bill Clinton's payment to Paula Jones was a settlement of a civil lawsuit that did not involve any criminal matter or criminal wrongdoing, and thus it was of no legitimate interest to law enforcement. The only commonality between the two cases was that they involved payments by politicians to women, but for very different reasons and circumstances.

A Facebook meme shows actual grocery store shelves photographed during the administrations of former U.S. President Donald Trump and current President Joe Biden.

Contradiction

On Oct. 12, 2021, a Facebook user posted a meme that purported to compare grocery store shelves as they appeared in 'Trump's America' vs. 'Biden's America.' The meme was somewhat similar to another one we previously reported about on the subject of gas prices. Both were highly misleading. The meme was shared 50,000 times in the first 48 hours. In reality, the photograph of fully-stocked grocery store shelves labeled 'Trump's America' was captured in 2012. At the time, former U.S. President Barack Obama was in the White House. Also, it wasn't even taken in the U.S. According to the Wikimedia Commons caption, it was shot at a Coles Supermarket at Westfield Southland Shopping Centre in Melbourne, Australia. Meanwhile, the second picture showing nearly empty shelves that was labeled 'Biden's America' was captured while former President Donald Trump was in office. According to MyHorryNews.com, which publishes local news for South Carolina, it was shot after a hurricane in September 2018. The caption read: 'Randy Spivey, Hills manager, concerned about when he can get his shelves restocked after Hurricane Florence and the flood that hit the area recently.' Presidents of both parties have been faced with natural disasters like Hurricane Florence that emptied some store shelves in impacted areas for temporary periods of time. Further, readers may recall that shelves were emptied of popular foods and other goods at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020. The New York Times attributed the empty shelves to 'panic shopping.' March 14, 2020. (Photo by JOSH EDELSON/AFP via Getty Images) The misleading Facebook meme was apparently posted in reaction to a shipping container logjam that was also occurring in October 2021. According to The Associated Press, it led to 'mass shortages' of goods 'and delays that have caused a longer than expected bout of inflation.' Businesses were worrying about monthslong delays for shipping containers in June, yet the administration only formed its supply chain task force that month and named a port envoy on Aug. 27 to address the challenge. Ports are also just one piece of the puzzle, Biden said. The country needs more truck drivers, private retailers to step up and better infrastructure, as well as a supply chain that can less easily be disrupted by pandemics and extreme weather. The president is trying to use the predicament as a selling point for his policy plans that undergoing congressional scrutiny. 'We need to take a longer view and invest in building greater resiliency to withstand the kinds of shocks we've seen over and over, year in and year out, the risk of pandemic, extreme weather, climate change, cyberattacks, weather disruptions,' he said. The sense of uncertainty is beginning to consume the attention of many Americans. As for what caused the supply chain issues in the first place, the Los Angeles Times described the root of the problem in the simplest way: the COVID-19 pandemic. The Times published that 'the pandemic whirled up a toxic brew of forces that triggered and then exacerbated the shipping logjam.' The first blow came when many of the Chinese plants that build parts or assemble goods for global manufacturers were shut down by coronavirus outbreaks. Similar disruptions soon spread across the globe, affecting both manufacturers and the logistics companies that ship, store and deliver their goods. After a brief COVID-related recession, however, demand for goods grew quickly, as people shifted to online buying and took up new habits (a surge in home-improvement projects, for example, boosted demand for appliances and construction materials). ... The pandemic is not entirely to blame. Robert Handfield, the Bank of America professor of supply chain management at North Carolina State University, said that 'warehouse, distribution, and truck driver shortages were bad before COVID.' But the pandemic made the shortfall dramatically worse. The Washington Post also published an interview with Gene Seroka, executive director of the Port of Los Angeles, who said that 'the United States is 'decades behind' foreign ports in getting carriers, terminals, and shippers to provide each other access to commercial data for planning purposes.' In sum, the viral Facebook meme that purported to display 'Trump's America' vs. 'Biden's America' showed pictures from the wrong presidential terms, and one of them wasn't even captured in the U.S. Further, it appeared to be attempting to score political points on a much larger problem.

In sum, the viral Facebook meme that purported to display 'Trump's America' vs. 'Biden's America' showed pictures from the wrong presidential terms, and one of them wasn't even captured in the U.S. Further, it appeared to be attempting to score political points on a much larger problem.

A Facebook meme shows actual grocery store shelves photographed during the administrations of former U.S. President Donald Trump and current President Joe Biden.

Contradiction

On Oct. 12, 2021, a Facebook user posted a meme that purported to compare grocery store shelves as they appeared in 'Trump's America' vs. 'Biden's America.' The meme was somewhat similar to another one we previously reported about on the subject of gas prices. Both were highly misleading. The meme was shared 50,000 times in the first 48 hours. In reality, the photograph of fully-stocked grocery store shelves labeled 'Trump's America' was captured in 2012. At the time, former U.S. President Barack Obama was in the White House. Also, it wasn't even taken in the U.S. According to the Wikimedia Commons caption, it was shot at a Coles Supermarket at Westfield Southland Shopping Centre in Melbourne, Australia. Meanwhile, the second picture showing nearly empty shelves that was labeled 'Biden's America' was captured while former President Donald Trump was in office. According to MyHorryNews.com, which publishes local news for South Carolina, it was shot after a hurricane in September 2018. The caption read: 'Randy Spivey, Hills manager, concerned about when he can get his shelves restocked after Hurricane Florence and the flood that hit the area recently.' Presidents of both parties have been faced with natural disasters like Hurricane Florence that emptied some store shelves in impacted areas for temporary periods of time. Further, readers may recall that shelves were emptied of popular foods and other goods at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020. The New York Times attributed the empty shelves to 'panic shopping.' March 14, 2020. (Photo by JOSH EDELSON/AFP via Getty Images) The misleading Facebook meme was apparently posted in reaction to a shipping container logjam that was also occurring in October 2021. According to The Associated Press, it led to 'mass shortages' of goods 'and delays that have caused a longer than expected bout of inflation.' Businesses were worrying about monthslong delays for shipping containers in June, yet the administration only formed its supply chain task force that month and named a port envoy on Aug. 27 to address the challenge. Ports are also just one piece of the puzzle, Biden said. The country needs more truck drivers, private retailers to step up and better infrastructure, as well as a supply chain that can less easily be disrupted by pandemics and extreme weather. The president is trying to use the predicament as a selling point for his policy plans that undergoing congressional scrutiny. 'We need to take a longer view and invest in building greater resiliency to withstand the kinds of shocks we've seen over and over, year in and year out, the risk of pandemic, extreme weather, climate change, cyberattacks, weather disruptions,' he said. The sense of uncertainty is beginning to consume the attention of many Americans. As for what caused the supply chain issues in the first place, the Los Angeles Times described the root of the problem in the simplest way: the COVID-19 pandemic. The Times published that 'the pandemic whirled up a toxic brew of forces that triggered and then exacerbated the shipping logjam.' The first blow came when many of the Chinese plants that build parts or assemble goods for global manufacturers were shut down by coronavirus outbreaks. Similar disruptions soon spread across the globe, affecting both manufacturers and the logistics companies that ship, store and deliver their goods. After a brief COVID-related recession, however, demand for goods grew quickly, as people shifted to online buying and took up new habits (a surge in home-improvement projects, for example, boosted demand for appliances and construction materials). ... The pandemic is not entirely to blame. Robert Handfield, the Bank of America professor of supply chain management at North Carolina State University, said that 'warehouse, distribution, and truck driver shortages were bad before COVID.' But the pandemic made the shortfall dramatically worse. The Washington Post also published an interview with Gene Seroka, executive director of the Port of Los Angeles, who said that 'the United States is 'decades behind' foreign ports in getting carriers, terminals, and shippers to provide each other access to commercial data for planning purposes.' In sum, the viral Facebook meme that purported to display 'Trump's America' vs. 'Biden's America' showed pictures from the wrong presidential terms, and one of them wasn't even captured in the U.S. Further, it appeared to be attempting to score political points on a much larger problem.

In sum, the viral Facebook meme that purported to display 'Trump's America' vs. 'Biden's America' showed pictures from the wrong presidential terms, and one of them wasn't even captured in the U.S. Further, it appeared to be attempting to score political points on a much larger problem.

A Facebook meme shows actual grocery store shelves photographed during the administrations of former U.S. President Donald Trump and current President Joe Biden.

Contradiction

On Oct. 12, 2021, a Facebook user posted a meme that purported to compare grocery store shelves as they appeared in 'Trump's America' vs. 'Biden's America.' The meme was somewhat similar to another one we previously reported about on the subject of gas prices. Both were highly misleading. The meme was shared 50,000 times in the first 48 hours. In reality, the photograph of fully-stocked grocery store shelves labeled 'Trump's America' was captured in 2012. At the time, former U.S. President Barack Obama was in the White House. Also, it wasn't even taken in the U.S. According to the Wikimedia Commons caption, it was shot at a Coles Supermarket at Westfield Southland Shopping Centre in Melbourne, Australia. Meanwhile, the second picture showing nearly empty shelves that was labeled 'Biden's America' was captured while former President Donald Trump was in office. According to MyHorryNews.com, which publishes local news for South Carolina, it was shot after a hurricane in September 2018. The caption read: 'Randy Spivey, Hills manager, concerned about when he can get his shelves restocked after Hurricane Florence and the flood that hit the area recently.' Presidents of both parties have been faced with natural disasters like Hurricane Florence that emptied some store shelves in impacted areas for temporary periods of time. Further, readers may recall that shelves were emptied of popular foods and other goods at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020. The New York Times attributed the empty shelves to 'panic shopping.' March 14, 2020. (Photo by JOSH EDELSON/AFP via Getty Images) The misleading Facebook meme was apparently posted in reaction to a shipping container logjam that was also occurring in October 2021. According to The Associated Press, it led to 'mass shortages' of goods 'and delays that have caused a longer than expected bout of inflation.' Businesses were worrying about monthslong delays for shipping containers in June, yet the administration only formed its supply chain task force that month and named a port envoy on Aug. 27 to address the challenge. Ports are also just one piece of the puzzle, Biden said. The country needs more truck drivers, private retailers to step up and better infrastructure, as well as a supply chain that can less easily be disrupted by pandemics and extreme weather. The president is trying to use the predicament as a selling point for his policy plans that undergoing congressional scrutiny. 'We need to take a longer view and invest in building greater resiliency to withstand the kinds of shocks we've seen over and over, year in and year out, the risk of pandemic, extreme weather, climate change, cyberattacks, weather disruptions,' he said. The sense of uncertainty is beginning to consume the attention of many Americans. As for what caused the supply chain issues in the first place, the Los Angeles Times described the root of the problem in the simplest way: the COVID-19 pandemic. The Times published that 'the pandemic whirled up a toxic brew of forces that triggered and then exacerbated the shipping logjam.' The first blow came when many of the Chinese plants that build parts or assemble goods for global manufacturers were shut down by coronavirus outbreaks. Similar disruptions soon spread across the globe, affecting both manufacturers and the logistics companies that ship, store and deliver their goods. After a brief COVID-related recession, however, demand for goods grew quickly, as people shifted to online buying and took up new habits (a surge in home-improvement projects, for example, boosted demand for appliances and construction materials). ... The pandemic is not entirely to blame. Robert Handfield, the Bank of America professor of supply chain management at North Carolina State University, said that 'warehouse, distribution, and truck driver shortages were bad before COVID.' But the pandemic made the shortfall dramatically worse. The Washington Post also published an interview with Gene Seroka, executive director of the Port of Los Angeles, who said that 'the United States is 'decades behind' foreign ports in getting carriers, terminals, and shippers to provide each other access to commercial data for planning purposes.' In sum, the viral Facebook meme that purported to display 'Trump's America' vs. 'Biden's America' showed pictures from the wrong presidential terms, and one of them wasn't even captured in the U.S. Further, it appeared to be attempting to score political points on a much larger problem.

In sum, the viral Facebook meme that purported to display 'Trump's America' vs. 'Biden's America' showed pictures from the wrong presidential terms, and one of them wasn't even captured in the U.S. Further, it appeared to be attempting to score political points on a much larger problem.

The difference between a graveyard and a cemetery, is that a graveyard adjoins a church whereas a cemetery does not. You can also bury ashes in a cemetery, but not in a graveyard.

Contradiction

With the arrival of Halloween 2020, we inevitably receive questions about those most hallowed of scary places: the graveyard and cemetery. A meme that has been making the rounds since 2019 resurfaced with details about burial places that we at Snopes had never heard of previously, so we decided to excavate some history. The meme claimed that the difference between a graveyard and a cemetery was that a graveyard adjoins a church, while a cemetery does not. The meme also claimed that one can bury ashes in a cemetery, but not in a graveyard. We dug in to discover interesting tidbits that showed not only are the above claims incorrect, but the alleged differences between the two forms of burial grounds boil down to etymology, history, and religious rules. What are the Origins of These Words? We reached out to a number of experts on burial grounds, particularly in western societies like the United States and Europe. Most experts pointed out to us that the distinctions between the two were in the etymology, and concrete differences emerged in the 18th and 19th century. Modern day usage of these terms is essentially synonymous, as seen in Merriam-Webster's dictionary, which defines a graveyard as a 'cemetery,' and a cemetery as a 'burial ground.' We learned that while 'graveyard' is used as an all-encompassing term to describe burial sites, cemeteries have an additional history. Most experts and textbooks we referred to described the contrasts between churchyards and cemeteries, and not graveyards and cemeteries. We spoke to David Sloane, a leading expert on commemoration, mourning and public spaces. Sloane, a professor in the Department of Urban Planning and Spatial Analysis in the Price School of Public Policy at the University of Southern California, told us 'there is little or no difference between a graveyard and a cemetery. Either can be places next to a church (although most of those are called churchyards).' This is true in present-day usage. But historically, that was not always the case. Allison Meier, a culture writer who moonlights as a cemetery tour guide, wrote in Lapham's Quarterly that, 'Before the 19th century, death in the United States, like life, largely revolved around religion. Those who were part of a congregation were often buried in the churchyard or the crypts underneath the church.' According to Thomas Laqueur, professor of history at the University of California, Berkeley, and author of 'The Work of the Dead: A Cultural History of Mortal Remains,' the word 'graveyard' was used generically during the late-18th century. All burial sites from the Middle Ages up until the late 19th century were essentially churchyards, or 'the yard of a church,' which also meant they were controlled by church authorities. And early usage of the word 'cemetery' corresponded with this practice, making it synonymous with a churchyard. According to 'The Work of the Dead': [...] the word 'cemetery,' when it first appeared in English in 1485, was a synonym for 'churchyard' [...] And when, nearly a century earlier in 1387, 'cemetery' appeared as a synonym for catacomb, it only just bypassed 'churchyard' by taking on its pagan-inflected archaic equivalent, 'chirchehawe' [...] When in 1656 a lexicographer first actually defined 'cemetery,' he takes us back to where we started: 'a churchyard.' 'Churchyard' itself was too easy a word to merit definition; dictionaries in the early days concentrated on hard words. 'Cemetery,' by contrast, was a hard word with a long convoluted history. It comes from the Greek koimhthrion and its Latin cognate coemeterium, and originally meant a sleeping place, a dormitory. Who Controlled Burial Sites? The late-18th and 19th century saw regions with established churches begin to resist religious control over burials. As described in 'The Work of the Dead': The moment in the 18th century when the word 'cemetery' is actually thinkable, even speakable, as something other than 'churchyard' represents [...] its assignment to a place that was explicitly not a churchyard, not a place of rest for Christians in good standing from a particular parish, but a cosmopolitan space for a cosmopolitan people, a sort of fantasy of ancient Rome's burial places. 'Cemeteries [were] explicitly a reaction to the churches' monopoly of the dead,' Laqueur told us, part of a widespread movement to secularize rituals, from marriages to burials. For Laqueur, the distinctions between churchyards and cemeteries ultimately boiled down to who was controlling the burial site. Churchyards were explicitly religious, and controlled by whichever church they belonged to, but cemeteries were not. This difference vanished in modern day times. In the United States, which was relatively pluralistic according to Laqueur, there was never one official established church, so burial practices varied according to regions or time periods. For many, cemeteries became like public parks. Mount Auburn Cemetery in Cambridge, Massachusetts, was created in 1831 over 72 acres of verdant lands in response to public health concerns surrounding the unsanitary conditions of burial grounds. The cemetery was so popular, it inspired a wave of rural cemeteries around the country, and the public flocked to them not just to mourn, but to enjoy the landscape, to picnic, and more. Where Can You Bury Ashes? Historically, churches had opposed cremation, partly because of the religious belief that the body could ultimately be resurrected. In the late 18th century, men of the Enlightenment and the French Revolution saw practicing cremation in burial rites as 'an anti-clerical protest' according to 'The Work of the Dead.' In Italy, the pioneers of cremation practices were anti-clerical scientists. 'The Work of the Dead' described the shift within the Church's approach to cremation: As corporeal resurrection became less theologically and emotionally exigent, the representational power of putting a dead body in ground from which it would rise again incorruptible diminished; cremation-in a sense the rapid release of a spirit from its fleshly prison-became more plausible. Now, the most straightforward answer on where one can bury ashes of the deceased, according to experts, is: it depends, but the meme was definitely not accurate. John Troyer, director of the Centre for Death and Society at the University of Bath, told us, 'You can bury cremated remains in graveyards. I've watched it happen.' According to Sloane, 'Some graveyards may prohibit the interment of ashes. Some cemeteries may have done so as well, say Catholic cemeteries where for decades [...] cremation was prohibited.' Laqueur agreed, saying 'It depends on who controls the graveyard [...] when it's not religion, it depends on the community. In other words, if a cemetery is owned outside of a small Southern town, it is perfectly possible that they wouldn't allow X,Y, and Z, that they would allow somewhere else.' By 1885, Britain had its first legal cremation in the country's first legally authorized crematorium. In the 1950s, the Catholic church allowed cremated remains to be buried with religious services as long as the ashes remained together and were not scattered, according to 'The Work of the Dead.' Today, Catholic church guidelines urge that cremated remains be preserved in cemeteries or other approved sacred places, and 'raises no doctrinal objections to this practice, since cremation of the deceased's body does not affect his or her soul.' The Catholic church also stated: 'When, for legitimate motives, cremation of the body has been chosen, the ashes of the faithful must be laid to rest in a sacred place, that is, in a cemetery or, in certain cases, in a church or an area, which has been set aside for this purpose, and so dedicated by the competent ecclesial authority.' The Catholic church is still, however, opposed to the scattering of ashes. Conclusion Today, the difference between graveyards and cemeteries is non-existent. Historical differences existed between churchyards and cemeteries that gradually went away in modern day usage. The interment of ashes is also dependent on the rituals of the community the burial site is tied to. The information in the above meme is misleading and incorrect, which goes to show that some claims should just remain buried. We thus rate the above meme as 'False.'

Conclusion Today, the difference between graveyards and cemeteries is non-existent. Historical differences existed between churchyards and cemeteries that gradually went away in modern day usage. The interment of ashes is also dependent on the rituals of the community the burial site is tied to. The information in the above meme is misleading and incorrect, which goes to show that some claims should just remain buried. We thus rate the above meme as 'False.'

The difference between a graveyard and a cemetery, is that a graveyard adjoins a church whereas a cemetery does not. You can also bury ashes in a cemetery, but not in a graveyard.

Contradiction

With the arrival of Halloween 2020, we inevitably receive questions about those most hallowed of scary places: the graveyard and cemetery. A meme that has been making the rounds since 2019 resurfaced with details about burial places that we at Snopes had never heard of previously, so we decided to excavate some history. The meme claimed that the difference between a graveyard and a cemetery was that a graveyard adjoins a church, while a cemetery does not. The meme also claimed that one can bury ashes in a cemetery, but not in a graveyard. We dug in to discover interesting tidbits that showed not only are the above claims incorrect, but the alleged differences between the two forms of burial grounds boil down to etymology, history, and religious rules. What are the Origins of These Words? We reached out to a number of experts on burial grounds, particularly in western societies like the United States and Europe. Most experts pointed out to us that the distinctions between the two were in the etymology, and concrete differences emerged in the 18th and 19th century. Modern day usage of these terms is essentially synonymous, as seen in Merriam-Webster's dictionary, which defines a graveyard as a 'cemetery,' and a cemetery as a 'burial ground.' We learned that while 'graveyard' is used as an all-encompassing term to describe burial sites, cemeteries have an additional history. Most experts and textbooks we referred to described the contrasts between churchyards and cemeteries, and not graveyards and cemeteries. We spoke to David Sloane, a leading expert on commemoration, mourning and public spaces. Sloane, a professor in the Department of Urban Planning and Spatial Analysis in the Price School of Public Policy at the University of Southern California, told us 'there is little or no difference between a graveyard and a cemetery. Either can be places next to a church (although most of those are called churchyards).' This is true in present-day usage. But historically, that was not always the case. Allison Meier, a culture writer who moonlights as a cemetery tour guide, wrote in Lapham's Quarterly that, 'Before the 19th century, death in the United States, like life, largely revolved around religion. Those who were part of a congregation were often buried in the churchyard or the crypts underneath the church.' According to Thomas Laqueur, professor of history at the University of California, Berkeley, and author of 'The Work of the Dead: A Cultural History of Mortal Remains,' the word 'graveyard' was used generically during the late-18th century. All burial sites from the Middle Ages up until the late 19th century were essentially churchyards, or 'the yard of a church,' which also meant they were controlled by church authorities. And early usage of the word 'cemetery' corresponded with this practice, making it synonymous with a churchyard. According to 'The Work of the Dead': [...] the word 'cemetery,' when it first appeared in English in 1485, was a synonym for 'churchyard' [...] And when, nearly a century earlier in 1387, 'cemetery' appeared as a synonym for catacomb, it only just bypassed 'churchyard' by taking on its pagan-inflected archaic equivalent, 'chirchehawe' [...] When in 1656 a lexicographer first actually defined 'cemetery,' he takes us back to where we started: 'a churchyard.' 'Churchyard' itself was too easy a word to merit definition; dictionaries in the early days concentrated on hard words. 'Cemetery,' by contrast, was a hard word with a long convoluted history. It comes from the Greek koimhthrion and its Latin cognate coemeterium, and originally meant a sleeping place, a dormitory. Who Controlled Burial Sites? The late-18th and 19th century saw regions with established churches begin to resist religious control over burials. As described in 'The Work of the Dead': The moment in the 18th century when the word 'cemetery' is actually thinkable, even speakable, as something other than 'churchyard' represents [...] its assignment to a place that was explicitly not a churchyard, not a place of rest for Christians in good standing from a particular parish, but a cosmopolitan space for a cosmopolitan people, a sort of fantasy of ancient Rome's burial places. 'Cemeteries [were] explicitly a reaction to the churches' monopoly of the dead,' Laqueur told us, part of a widespread movement to secularize rituals, from marriages to burials. For Laqueur, the distinctions between churchyards and cemeteries ultimately boiled down to who was controlling the burial site. Churchyards were explicitly religious, and controlled by whichever church they belonged to, but cemeteries were not. This difference vanished in modern day times. In the United States, which was relatively pluralistic according to Laqueur, there was never one official established church, so burial practices varied according to regions or time periods. For many, cemeteries became like public parks. Mount Auburn Cemetery in Cambridge, Massachusetts, was created in 1831 over 72 acres of verdant lands in response to public health concerns surrounding the unsanitary conditions of burial grounds. The cemetery was so popular, it inspired a wave of rural cemeteries around the country, and the public flocked to them not just to mourn, but to enjoy the landscape, to picnic, and more. Where Can You Bury Ashes? Historically, churches had opposed cremation, partly because of the religious belief that the body could ultimately be resurrected. In the late 18th century, men of the Enlightenment and the French Revolution saw practicing cremation in burial rites as 'an anti-clerical protest' according to 'The Work of the Dead.' In Italy, the pioneers of cremation practices were anti-clerical scientists. 'The Work of the Dead' described the shift within the Church's approach to cremation: As corporeal resurrection became less theologically and emotionally exigent, the representational power of putting a dead body in ground from which it would rise again incorruptible diminished; cremation-in a sense the rapid release of a spirit from its fleshly prison-became more plausible. Now, the most straightforward answer on where one can bury ashes of the deceased, according to experts, is: it depends, but the meme was definitely not accurate. John Troyer, director of the Centre for Death and Society at the University of Bath, told us, 'You can bury cremated remains in graveyards. I've watched it happen.' According to Sloane, 'Some graveyards may prohibit the interment of ashes. Some cemeteries may have done so as well, say Catholic cemeteries where for decades [...] cremation was prohibited.' Laqueur agreed, saying 'It depends on who controls the graveyard [...] when it's not religion, it depends on the community. In other words, if a cemetery is owned outside of a small Southern town, it is perfectly possible that they wouldn't allow X,Y, and Z, that they would allow somewhere else.' By 1885, Britain had its first legal cremation in the country's first legally authorized crematorium. In the 1950s, the Catholic church allowed cremated remains to be buried with religious services as long as the ashes remained together and were not scattered, according to 'The Work of the Dead.' Today, Catholic church guidelines urge that cremated remains be preserved in cemeteries or other approved sacred places, and 'raises no doctrinal objections to this practice, since cremation of the deceased's body does not affect his or her soul.' The Catholic church also stated: 'When, for legitimate motives, cremation of the body has been chosen, the ashes of the faithful must be laid to rest in a sacred place, that is, in a cemetery or, in certain cases, in a church or an area, which has been set aside for this purpose, and so dedicated by the competent ecclesial authority.' The Catholic church is still, however, opposed to the scattering of ashes. Conclusion Today, the difference between graveyards and cemeteries is non-existent. Historical differences existed between churchyards and cemeteries that gradually went away in modern day usage. The interment of ashes is also dependent on the rituals of the community the burial site is tied to. The information in the above meme is misleading and incorrect, which goes to show that some claims should just remain buried. We thus rate the above meme as 'False.'

Conclusion Today, the difference between graveyards and cemeteries is non-existent. Historical differences existed between churchyards and cemeteries that gradually went away in modern day usage. The interment of ashes is also dependent on the rituals of the community the burial site is tied to. The information in the above meme is misleading and incorrect, which goes to show that some claims should just remain buried. We thus rate the above meme as 'False.'

The difference between a graveyard and a cemetery, is that a graveyard adjoins a church whereas a cemetery does not. You can also bury ashes in a cemetery, but not in a graveyard.

Contradiction

With the arrival of Halloween 2020, we inevitably receive questions about those most hallowed of scary places: the graveyard and cemetery. A meme that has been making the rounds since 2019 resurfaced with details about burial places that we at Snopes had never heard of previously, so we decided to excavate some history. The meme claimed that the difference between a graveyard and a cemetery was that a graveyard adjoins a church, while a cemetery does not. The meme also claimed that one can bury ashes in a cemetery, but not in a graveyard. We dug in to discover interesting tidbits that showed not only are the above claims incorrect, but the alleged differences between the two forms of burial grounds boil down to etymology, history, and religious rules. What are the Origins of These Words? We reached out to a number of experts on burial grounds, particularly in western societies like the United States and Europe. Most experts pointed out to us that the distinctions between the two were in the etymology, and concrete differences emerged in the 18th and 19th century. Modern day usage of these terms is essentially synonymous, as seen in Merriam-Webster's dictionary, which defines a graveyard as a 'cemetery,' and a cemetery as a 'burial ground.' We learned that while 'graveyard' is used as an all-encompassing term to describe burial sites, cemeteries have an additional history. Most experts and textbooks we referred to described the contrasts between churchyards and cemeteries, and not graveyards and cemeteries. We spoke to David Sloane, a leading expert on commemoration, mourning and public spaces. Sloane, a professor in the Department of Urban Planning and Spatial Analysis in the Price School of Public Policy at the University of Southern California, told us 'there is little or no difference between a graveyard and a cemetery. Either can be places next to a church (although most of those are called churchyards).' This is true in present-day usage. But historically, that was not always the case. Allison Meier, a culture writer who moonlights as a cemetery tour guide, wrote in Lapham's Quarterly that, 'Before the 19th century, death in the United States, like life, largely revolved around religion. Those who were part of a congregation were often buried in the churchyard or the crypts underneath the church.' According to Thomas Laqueur, professor of history at the University of California, Berkeley, and author of 'The Work of the Dead: A Cultural History of Mortal Remains,' the word 'graveyard' was used generically during the late-18th century. All burial sites from the Middle Ages up until the late 19th century were essentially churchyards, or 'the yard of a church,' which also meant they were controlled by church authorities. And early usage of the word 'cemetery' corresponded with this practice, making it synonymous with a churchyard. According to 'The Work of the Dead': [...] the word 'cemetery,' when it first appeared in English in 1485, was a synonym for 'churchyard' [...] And when, nearly a century earlier in 1387, 'cemetery' appeared as a synonym for catacomb, it only just bypassed 'churchyard' by taking on its pagan-inflected archaic equivalent, 'chirchehawe' [...] When in 1656 a lexicographer first actually defined 'cemetery,' he takes us back to where we started: 'a churchyard.' 'Churchyard' itself was too easy a word to merit definition; dictionaries in the early days concentrated on hard words. 'Cemetery,' by contrast, was a hard word with a long convoluted history. It comes from the Greek koimhthrion and its Latin cognate coemeterium, and originally meant a sleeping place, a dormitory. Who Controlled Burial Sites? The late-18th and 19th century saw regions with established churches begin to resist religious control over burials. As described in 'The Work of the Dead': The moment in the 18th century when the word 'cemetery' is actually thinkable, even speakable, as something other than 'churchyard' represents [...] its assignment to a place that was explicitly not a churchyard, not a place of rest for Christians in good standing from a particular parish, but a cosmopolitan space for a cosmopolitan people, a sort of fantasy of ancient Rome's burial places. 'Cemeteries [were] explicitly a reaction to the churches' monopoly of the dead,' Laqueur told us, part of a widespread movement to secularize rituals, from marriages to burials. For Laqueur, the distinctions between churchyards and cemeteries ultimately boiled down to who was controlling the burial site. Churchyards were explicitly religious, and controlled by whichever church they belonged to, but cemeteries were not. This difference vanished in modern day times. In the United States, which was relatively pluralistic according to Laqueur, there was never one official established church, so burial practices varied according to regions or time periods. For many, cemeteries became like public parks. Mount Auburn Cemetery in Cambridge, Massachusetts, was created in 1831 over 72 acres of verdant lands in response to public health concerns surrounding the unsanitary conditions of burial grounds. The cemetery was so popular, it inspired a wave of rural cemeteries around the country, and the public flocked to them not just to mourn, but to enjoy the landscape, to picnic, and more. Where Can You Bury Ashes? Historically, churches had opposed cremation, partly because of the religious belief that the body could ultimately be resurrected. In the late 18th century, men of the Enlightenment and the French Revolution saw practicing cremation in burial rites as 'an anti-clerical protest' according to 'The Work of the Dead.' In Italy, the pioneers of cremation practices were anti-clerical scientists. 'The Work of the Dead' described the shift within the Church's approach to cremation: As corporeal resurrection became less theologically and emotionally exigent, the representational power of putting a dead body in ground from which it would rise again incorruptible diminished; cremation-in a sense the rapid release of a spirit from its fleshly prison-became more plausible. Now, the most straightforward answer on where one can bury ashes of the deceased, according to experts, is: it depends, but the meme was definitely not accurate. John Troyer, director of the Centre for Death and Society at the University of Bath, told us, 'You can bury cremated remains in graveyards. I've watched it happen.' According to Sloane, 'Some graveyards may prohibit the interment of ashes. Some cemeteries may have done so as well, say Catholic cemeteries where for decades [...] cremation was prohibited.' Laqueur agreed, saying 'It depends on who controls the graveyard [...] when it's not religion, it depends on the community. In other words, if a cemetery is owned outside of a small Southern town, it is perfectly possible that they wouldn't allow X,Y, and Z, that they would allow somewhere else.' By 1885, Britain had its first legal cremation in the country's first legally authorized crematorium. In the 1950s, the Catholic church allowed cremated remains to be buried with religious services as long as the ashes remained together and were not scattered, according to 'The Work of the Dead.' Today, Catholic church guidelines urge that cremated remains be preserved in cemeteries or other approved sacred places, and 'raises no doctrinal objections to this practice, since cremation of the deceased's body does not affect his or her soul.' The Catholic church also stated: 'When, for legitimate motives, cremation of the body has been chosen, the ashes of the faithful must be laid to rest in a sacred place, that is, in a cemetery or, in certain cases, in a church or an area, which has been set aside for this purpose, and so dedicated by the competent ecclesial authority.' The Catholic church is still, however, opposed to the scattering of ashes. Conclusion Today, the difference between graveyards and cemeteries is non-existent. Historical differences existed between churchyards and cemeteries that gradually went away in modern day usage. The interment of ashes is also dependent on the rituals of the community the burial site is tied to. The information in the above meme is misleading and incorrect, which goes to show that some claims should just remain buried. We thus rate the above meme as 'False.'

Conclusion Today, the difference between graveyards and cemeteries is non-existent. Historical differences existed between churchyards and cemeteries that gradually went away in modern day usage. The interment of ashes is also dependent on the rituals of the community the burial site is tied to. The information in the above meme is misleading and incorrect, which goes to show that some claims should just remain buried. We thus rate the above meme as 'False.'

Posting a legal notice on your Facebook wall or Instagram feed will protect you from having all your posts and photos made public.

Contradiction

Messages about protecting your copyright or privacy rights on Facebook by posting a particular legal notice to your Facebook wall have been periodically circulated on that social network for many years, and all of them are variants of an older rumor holding that posting a similar notice on a website would protect that site's operators from prosecution for piracy: Hi all. Don't forget today starts the new Instagram rule where they can use your photo Don't forget Deadline tomorrow !!! Everything you've ever posted becomes public from tomorrow. Even messages that have been deleted or the photos not allowed. It costs nothing for a simple copy and paste, better safe than sorry. Channel 9 News talked about the change in Instagram's privacy policy. I do not give Instagram or any entities associated with Facebook permission to use my pictures, information, messages or posts, both past and future. With this statement, I give notice to Instagram it is strictly forbidden to disclose, copy, distribute, or take any other action against me based on this profile and/or its contents. The content of this profile is private and confidential information. The violation of privacy can be punished by law (UCC 1-308- 1 1 308-103 and the Rome Statute). NOTE: Instagram is now a public entity. All members must post a note like this. If you prefer, you can copy and paste this version. If you do not publish a statement at least once it will be tacitly allowing the use of your photos, as well as the information contained in the profile status updates. DO NOT SHARE. Copy and paste. Wondered why Instagram was so boring! Deadline tomorrow !!! Everything you've ever posted becomes public from tomorrow. Even messages that have been deleted or the photos not allowed. It costs nothing for a simple copy and paste, better safe than sorry. Channel 13 News talked about the change in Facebook's privacy policy. I do not give Facebook or any entities associated with Facebook permission to use my pictures, information, messages or posts, both past and future. With this statement, I give notice to Facebook it is strictly forbidden to disclose, copy, distribute, or take any other action against me based on this profile and/or its contents. Better to be safe than sorry. An attorney advised us to post this. Good enough for me. The violation of privacy can be punished by law (UCC 1-308- 1 1 308-103 and the Rome Statute). NOTE: Facebook is now a public entity. All members must post a note like this. If you do not publish a statement at least once, it will be tacitly understood that you are allowing the use of your photos, as well as the information contained in your profile status updates. I HEREBY STATE THAT I DO NOT GIVE MY PERMISSION.' In both cases the claims were erroneous, an expression of the mistaken belief the use of some simple legal talisman - knowing enough to ask the right question or post a pertinent disclaimer - will immunize one from some undesirable legal consequence. The law just doesn't work that way. First off, the 'problem' this ineffective solution supposedly addresses is a non-existent one: Facebook isn't claiming copyright to the personal information, photographs, and other material that their users are posting to the social network, nor have they announced any plans that would make all Facebook posts public (even previously deleted ones) regardless of a user's privacy settings): In response to rumors about copyright issues that began circulating in November 2012 after Facebook announced they were considering revoking users' rights to vote on proposed policy changes, the company issued a statement noting that: There is a rumor circulating that Facebook is making a change related to ownership of users' information or the content they post to the site. This is false. Anyone who uses Facebook owns and controls the content and information they post, as stated in our terms. They control how that content and information is shared. That is our policy, and it always has been. Click here to learn more: www.facebook.com/policies. Similarly, ABC News reported: [Users worried that] Facebook will own their photos or other media are posting [a frightful message] - unaware that it is a hoax. Here's the truth: Facebook doesn't own your media. 'We have noticed some statements that suggest otherwise and we wanted to take a moment to remind you of the facts - when you post things like photos to Facebook, we do not own them,' Facebook spokesman Andrew Noyes said in a statement. 'Under our terms you grant Facebook permission to use, distribute, and share the things you post, subject to the terms and applicable privacy settings.' Brad Shear, a Washington-area attorney and blogger who is an expert on social media, said the message [that Facebook users are posting to their walls is] 'misleading and not true.' He said that when you agree to Facebook's terms of use you provide Facebook a 'non-exclusive, transferable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any content you post. You do not need to make any declarations about copyright issues since the law already protects you. The privacy declaration [in this message] is worthless and does not mean anything.' In any case, Facebook users cannot retroactively negate any of the privacy or copyright terms they agreed to when they signed up for their accounts, nor can they unilaterally alter or contradict any new privacy or copyright terms instituted by Facebook, simply by posting a contrary legal notice on their Facebook walls. Moreover, the fact that Facebook is now a publicly traded company (i.e., a company that has issued stocks which are traded on the open market) or an 'open capital entity' has nothing to do with copyright protection or privacy rights. Any copyright or privacy agreements users of Facebook have entered into with that company prior to its becoming a publicly traded company or changing its policies remain in effect: they are neither diminished nor enhanced by Facebook's public status. Before you can use Facebook, you must indicate your acceptance of that social network's legal terms, which includes its privacy policy and its terms and policies. You can neither alter your acceptance of that agreement nor restrict the rights of entities who are not parties to that agreement simply by posting a notice to your Facebook account, citing the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), or referencing the Berne Convention. (One of the common legal talismans referenced above is UCC Section 1-308, which has long been popular among conspiracy buffs who incorrectly maintain that citing it above your signature on an instrument will confer upon you the ability to invoke extraordinary legal rights.) If you do not agree with Facebook's stated policies, you have several options: Decline to sign up for a Facebook account. Bilaterally negotiate a modified policy with Facebook. Lobby for Facebook to amend its policies through its Facebook Site Governance section. Cancel your Facebook account. (Note that in the last case, you may have already ceded some rights which you cannot necessarily reclaim by canceling your account.) As techtalk noted of Facebook users' current privacy rights: The fact is that Facebook members own the intellectual property (IP) that is uploaded to the social network, but depending on their privacy and applications settings, users grant the social network 'a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License).' Facebook adds, '[t]his IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.' While the social network does not technically own its members content, it has the right to use anything that is not protected with Facebook's privacy and applications settings. For instance, photos, videos and status updates set to public are fair game. Similar memes A variation on this meme related to Snapchat photos, which was similarly false, went viral in summer 2019.

in summer 2019.

Posting a legal notice on your Facebook wall or Instagram feed will protect you from having all your posts and photos made public.

Contradiction

Messages about protecting your copyright or privacy rights on Facebook by posting a particular legal notice to your Facebook wall have been periodically circulated on that social network for many years, and all of them are variants of an older rumor holding that posting a similar notice on a website would protect that site's operators from prosecution for piracy: Hi all. Don't forget today starts the new Instagram rule where they can use your photo Don't forget Deadline tomorrow !!! Everything you've ever posted becomes public from tomorrow. Even messages that have been deleted or the photos not allowed. It costs nothing for a simple copy and paste, better safe than sorry. Channel 9 News talked about the change in Instagram's privacy policy. I do not give Instagram or any entities associated with Facebook permission to use my pictures, information, messages or posts, both past and future. With this statement, I give notice to Instagram it is strictly forbidden to disclose, copy, distribute, or take any other action against me based on this profile and/or its contents. The content of this profile is private and confidential information. The violation of privacy can be punished by law (UCC 1-308- 1 1 308-103 and the Rome Statute). NOTE: Instagram is now a public entity. All members must post a note like this. If you prefer, you can copy and paste this version. If you do not publish a statement at least once it will be tacitly allowing the use of your photos, as well as the information contained in the profile status updates. DO NOT SHARE. Copy and paste. Wondered why Instagram was so boring! Deadline tomorrow !!! Everything you've ever posted becomes public from tomorrow. Even messages that have been deleted or the photos not allowed. It costs nothing for a simple copy and paste, better safe than sorry. Channel 13 News talked about the change in Facebook's privacy policy. I do not give Facebook or any entities associated with Facebook permission to use my pictures, information, messages or posts, both past and future. With this statement, I give notice to Facebook it is strictly forbidden to disclose, copy, distribute, or take any other action against me based on this profile and/or its contents. Better to be safe than sorry. An attorney advised us to post this. Good enough for me. The violation of privacy can be punished by law (UCC 1-308- 1 1 308-103 and the Rome Statute). NOTE: Facebook is now a public entity. All members must post a note like this. If you do not publish a statement at least once, it will be tacitly understood that you are allowing the use of your photos, as well as the information contained in your profile status updates. I HEREBY STATE THAT I DO NOT GIVE MY PERMISSION.' In both cases the claims were erroneous, an expression of the mistaken belief the use of some simple legal talisman - knowing enough to ask the right question or post a pertinent disclaimer - will immunize one from some undesirable legal consequence. The law just doesn't work that way. First off, the 'problem' this ineffective solution supposedly addresses is a non-existent one: Facebook isn't claiming copyright to the personal information, photographs, and other material that their users are posting to the social network, nor have they announced any plans that would make all Facebook posts public (even previously deleted ones) regardless of a user's privacy settings): In response to rumors about copyright issues that began circulating in November 2012 after Facebook announced they were considering revoking users' rights to vote on proposed policy changes, the company issued a statement noting that: There is a rumor circulating that Facebook is making a change related to ownership of users' information or the content they post to the site. This is false. Anyone who uses Facebook owns and controls the content and information they post, as stated in our terms. They control how that content and information is shared. That is our policy, and it always has been. Click here to learn more: www.facebook.com/policies. Similarly, ABC News reported: [Users worried that] Facebook will own their photos or other media are posting [a frightful message] - unaware that it is a hoax. Here's the truth: Facebook doesn't own your media. 'We have noticed some statements that suggest otherwise and we wanted to take a moment to remind you of the facts - when you post things like photos to Facebook, we do not own them,' Facebook spokesman Andrew Noyes said in a statement. 'Under our terms you grant Facebook permission to use, distribute, and share the things you post, subject to the terms and applicable privacy settings.' Brad Shear, a Washington-area attorney and blogger who is an expert on social media, said the message [that Facebook users are posting to their walls is] 'misleading and not true.' He said that when you agree to Facebook's terms of use you provide Facebook a 'non-exclusive, transferable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any content you post. You do not need to make any declarations about copyright issues since the law already protects you. The privacy declaration [in this message] is worthless and does not mean anything.' In any case, Facebook users cannot retroactively negate any of the privacy or copyright terms they agreed to when they signed up for their accounts, nor can they unilaterally alter or contradict any new privacy or copyright terms instituted by Facebook, simply by posting a contrary legal notice on their Facebook walls. Moreover, the fact that Facebook is now a publicly traded company (i.e., a company that has issued stocks which are traded on the open market) or an 'open capital entity' has nothing to do with copyright protection or privacy rights. Any copyright or privacy agreements users of Facebook have entered into with that company prior to its becoming a publicly traded company or changing its policies remain in effect: they are neither diminished nor enhanced by Facebook's public status. Before you can use Facebook, you must indicate your acceptance of that social network's legal terms, which includes its privacy policy and its terms and policies. You can neither alter your acceptance of that agreement nor restrict the rights of entities who are not parties to that agreement simply by posting a notice to your Facebook account, citing the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), or referencing the Berne Convention. (One of the common legal talismans referenced above is UCC Section 1-308, which has long been popular among conspiracy buffs who incorrectly maintain that citing it above your signature on an instrument will confer upon you the ability to invoke extraordinary legal rights.) If you do not agree with Facebook's stated policies, you have several options: Decline to sign up for a Facebook account. Bilaterally negotiate a modified policy with Facebook. Lobby for Facebook to amend its policies through its Facebook Site Governance section. Cancel your Facebook account. (Note that in the last case, you may have already ceded some rights which you cannot necessarily reclaim by canceling your account.) As techtalk noted of Facebook users' current privacy rights: The fact is that Facebook members own the intellectual property (IP) that is uploaded to the social network, but depending on their privacy and applications settings, users grant the social network 'a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License).' Facebook adds, '[t]his IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.' While the social network does not technically own its members content, it has the right to use anything that is not protected with Facebook's privacy and applications settings. For instance, photos, videos and status updates set to public are fair game. Similar memes A variation on this meme related to Snapchat photos, which was similarly false, went viral in summer 2019.

in summer 2019.

Posting a legal notice on your Facebook wall or Instagram feed will protect you from having all your posts and photos made public.

Contradiction

Messages about protecting your copyright or privacy rights on Facebook by posting a particular legal notice to your Facebook wall have been periodically circulated on that social network for many years, and all of them are variants of an older rumor holding that posting a similar notice on a website would protect that site's operators from prosecution for piracy: Hi all. Don't forget today starts the new Instagram rule where they can use your photo Don't forget Deadline tomorrow !!! Everything you've ever posted becomes public from tomorrow. Even messages that have been deleted or the photos not allowed. It costs nothing for a simple copy and paste, better safe than sorry. Channel 9 News talked about the change in Instagram's privacy policy. I do not give Instagram or any entities associated with Facebook permission to use my pictures, information, messages or posts, both past and future. With this statement, I give notice to Instagram it is strictly forbidden to disclose, copy, distribute, or take any other action against me based on this profile and/or its contents. The content of this profile is private and confidential information. The violation of privacy can be punished by law (UCC 1-308- 1 1 308-103 and the Rome Statute). NOTE: Instagram is now a public entity. All members must post a note like this. If you prefer, you can copy and paste this version. If you do not publish a statement at least once it will be tacitly allowing the use of your photos, as well as the information contained in the profile status updates. DO NOT SHARE. Copy and paste. Wondered why Instagram was so boring! Deadline tomorrow !!! Everything you've ever posted becomes public from tomorrow. Even messages that have been deleted or the photos not allowed. It costs nothing for a simple copy and paste, better safe than sorry. Channel 13 News talked about the change in Facebook's privacy policy. I do not give Facebook or any entities associated with Facebook permission to use my pictures, information, messages or posts, both past and future. With this statement, I give notice to Facebook it is strictly forbidden to disclose, copy, distribute, or take any other action against me based on this profile and/or its contents. Better to be safe than sorry. An attorney advised us to post this. Good enough for me. The violation of privacy can be punished by law (UCC 1-308- 1 1 308-103 and the Rome Statute). NOTE: Facebook is now a public entity. All members must post a note like this. If you do not publish a statement at least once, it will be tacitly understood that you are allowing the use of your photos, as well as the information contained in your profile status updates. I HEREBY STATE THAT I DO NOT GIVE MY PERMISSION.' In both cases the claims were erroneous, an expression of the mistaken belief the use of some simple legal talisman - knowing enough to ask the right question or post a pertinent disclaimer - will immunize one from some undesirable legal consequence. The law just doesn't work that way. First off, the 'problem' this ineffective solution supposedly addresses is a non-existent one: Facebook isn't claiming copyright to the personal information, photographs, and other material that their users are posting to the social network, nor have they announced any plans that would make all Facebook posts public (even previously deleted ones) regardless of a user's privacy settings): In response to rumors about copyright issues that began circulating in November 2012 after Facebook announced they were considering revoking users' rights to vote on proposed policy changes, the company issued a statement noting that: There is a rumor circulating that Facebook is making a change related to ownership of users' information or the content they post to the site. This is false. Anyone who uses Facebook owns and controls the content and information they post, as stated in our terms. They control how that content and information is shared. That is our policy, and it always has been. Click here to learn more: www.facebook.com/policies. Similarly, ABC News reported: [Users worried that] Facebook will own their photos or other media are posting [a frightful message] - unaware that it is a hoax. Here's the truth: Facebook doesn't own your media. 'We have noticed some statements that suggest otherwise and we wanted to take a moment to remind you of the facts - when you post things like photos to Facebook, we do not own them,' Facebook spokesman Andrew Noyes said in a statement. 'Under our terms you grant Facebook permission to use, distribute, and share the things you post, subject to the terms and applicable privacy settings.' Brad Shear, a Washington-area attorney and blogger who is an expert on social media, said the message [that Facebook users are posting to their walls is] 'misleading and not true.' He said that when you agree to Facebook's terms of use you provide Facebook a 'non-exclusive, transferable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any content you post. You do not need to make any declarations about copyright issues since the law already protects you. The privacy declaration [in this message] is worthless and does not mean anything.' In any case, Facebook users cannot retroactively negate any of the privacy or copyright terms they agreed to when they signed up for their accounts, nor can they unilaterally alter or contradict any new privacy or copyright terms instituted by Facebook, simply by posting a contrary legal notice on their Facebook walls. Moreover, the fact that Facebook is now a publicly traded company (i.e., a company that has issued stocks which are traded on the open market) or an 'open capital entity' has nothing to do with copyright protection or privacy rights. Any copyright or privacy agreements users of Facebook have entered into with that company prior to its becoming a publicly traded company or changing its policies remain in effect: they are neither diminished nor enhanced by Facebook's public status. Before you can use Facebook, you must indicate your acceptance of that social network's legal terms, which includes its privacy policy and its terms and policies. You can neither alter your acceptance of that agreement nor restrict the rights of entities who are not parties to that agreement simply by posting a notice to your Facebook account, citing the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), or referencing the Berne Convention. (One of the common legal talismans referenced above is UCC Section 1-308, which has long been popular among conspiracy buffs who incorrectly maintain that citing it above your signature on an instrument will confer upon you the ability to invoke extraordinary legal rights.) If you do not agree with Facebook's stated policies, you have several options: Decline to sign up for a Facebook account. Bilaterally negotiate a modified policy with Facebook. Lobby for Facebook to amend its policies through its Facebook Site Governance section. Cancel your Facebook account. (Note that in the last case, you may have already ceded some rights which you cannot necessarily reclaim by canceling your account.) As techtalk noted of Facebook users' current privacy rights: The fact is that Facebook members own the intellectual property (IP) that is uploaded to the social network, but depending on their privacy and applications settings, users grant the social network 'a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License).' Facebook adds, '[t]his IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.' While the social network does not technically own its members content, it has the right to use anything that is not protected with Facebook's privacy and applications settings. For instance, photos, videos and status updates set to public are fair game. Similar memes A variation on this meme related to Snapchat photos, which was similarly false, went viral in summer 2019.

in summer 2019.