Did Trump's Tulsa Rally Result in 100% Positive COVID-19 Test Rates in Oklahoma?
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.  fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO As U.S. President Donald Trump faced political fallout from his June 20, 2020, rally in Tulsa, Oklahoma, many speculated about the health consequences of the large gathering due to the ongoing COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic. One such speculation took place on MSNBC's "All in With Chris Hayes" program, where on June 29, the anchor addressed a spike in COVID-19 cases in the state. June 20, 2020 Though Hayes emphasized there was no way to confirm cause and effect, his analysis led to an incorrect theory that the rally resulted in two days of 100% positive COVID-19 tests a week later. In a later segment, Hayes clarified that the data he presented was incomplete. incorrect theory segment We will address this claim starting with the initial misreport, followed by a look at the actual data, and then the clarification. On June 29, Hayes reported that positive COVID-19 test rates in Oklahoma had skyrocketed. He said: June 29 And it comes less than 10 days after that infamous Tulsa, Oklahoma, rally where even with the arena far from full, you still had thousands of people gathered in an indoor space cheering and screaming in a city that had just seen a spike in cases and in violation of every single recommendation for safety ... And while we never know cause and effect exactly, particularly in the moment, its hard to figure out what the exact impact of that rally looks ... Look at this: yesterday in Oklahoma, they tested 352 people for the coronavirus, and every single test came back positive. Today they tested another 178 people, and all those tests came back positive, too. If you cant do the math in your head, thats a 100% positive rate. According to data the show cited from The COVID Tracking Project on those dates, there did appear to be a 100% COVID-19 positive testing rate. On June 28 and 29 respectively, the data showed 352 and 178 tests were conducted and reported positive (see table below). This was in stark contrast to June 30 numbers that showed more than 15,000 tests had been conducted, and the number of negative cases had risen.  The COVID Tracking Project    However, Hayes language led to misinterpretation. PoliticusUSA, a news organization, reported Trumps rally "may have [had] an impact on the spread of coronavirus in the state." Numerous tweets linked the two events together more directly. PoliticusUSA Numerous tweets  But the reality was not so simple. We found some lags in the government's reporting after looking at the Oklahoma health departments daily executive order reports, which provide updated cumulative COVID-19 data for the state, and speaking with Paul Monies, a reporter with Oklahoma Watch, a non-profit investigative journalism outlet. Those lags generally mean that percentages pinned to any specific day can be problematic. executive order reports Each government report  only issued on weekdays  shares data from midnight of the previous day, so the Monday report would conceivably share new information from Sunday, in addition to cumulative data. Monies suggested that many labs with COVID-19 tests were closed on weekends, or worked limited hours, so complete numbers of COVID-19 tests would be released during the regular work week in government reports. Indeed, each report indicates with an asterisk which labs were closed on weekends. Monday report report indicates The COVID Tracking Projects reporting showed that on some weekends, negative specimens' numbers remained unchanged. For example, the government did not release reports for July 3, 4, and 5 during the Fourth of July break, so The COVID Tracking Project reflected the negative specimens' data from the July 2 report for those three days, a cumulative total of 348,789. The same lag happened on June 27, 28, and 29, where the number of negative specimens remained unchanged in reports (313,021), and The COVID Tracking Project reflected data from the government's June 26 report. In other words, reporting delays impacted both the data reported by the government and the data that The COVID Tracking Project pulled from the government.  COVID Tracking Projects COVID Tracking Project July 2 report  June 26 report We also noticed that the state reported large batches of negative tests on Tuesday mornings. For this reason, looking at positive percentage rates on specific days was not useful, Dillon Richards, an Oklahoma City reporter with KOCO News, told us.  On July 1, Hayes issued a correction: July 1 ... those numbers I cited on Monday did not provide a clear or complete picture because they were not the final numbers for Oklahomas weekend testing. I have a cardinal rule that I violated there, that if a statistic sounds too wild to be true, it probably is ... PoliticusUSA also subsequently corrected its report. Hayes told Snopes: PoliticusUSA ... our reporting of what the state had published *was correct* ( I was so incredulous I actually checked it manually myself!) but it was a byproduct of a bad reporting system that is lumpy and misleading. All of that said, Trumps June 20 rally did violate numerous health recommendations from experts, took place when COVID-19 cases were rising in the state, and may have resulted in some positive cases. But no one has traced the increased number of cases to that one event. Oklahoma is also one of the unhealthiest states in the country, a potential factor in rising numbers. violate unhealthiest In sum, even though the rally may have increased risk for attendees, its connection to rising COVID cases is difficult to prove. The 100% positive test rate was also misreported, and Hayes issued a clarification. We therefore rate this claim as  Brown, Trevor. "Experts: Oklahoma, Among the Unhealthiest States, Faces Heightened Risks for COVID-19."
 Frontline PBS. 16 April 2020. Colarossi, Sean. "Correction: MSNBCs Chris Hayes Misinterpreted Oklahoma Virus Test Data."
 PoliticusUSA. 29 June 2020. Coronavirus.health.ok.gov. "Executive Order Reports." Gupta, Sanjay and Andrea Kane. "How Risky is it to Attend a Trump Campaign Rally During a Pandemic?"
 CNN. 19 June 2020. Lutz, Tom. "Brad Parscale Faces Trump 'Fury' After Tulsa Comeback Rally Flops."
 The Guardian. 21 June 2020. Regan, Helen, Marsh, Jenni, Rahim, Zamira. "Coronavirus Pandemic: Updates From Around The World."
 CNN. 21 June 2020. The COVID Tracking Project. "Oklahoma."
An online tweet-turned-meme attempted to link then-U.S. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, U.S. Rep. Beto O'Rourke, and Mexican drug lord Joaqun Archivaldo Guzmn Loera (commonly known as "El Chapo") in a plot to "keep the USA/Mexico border open":  Nothing implied or stated in this meme from January 2019 stands up to scrutiny, though. First off, the suggestion that the featured photograph captured some form of furtive meeting or secret negotiations between El Chapo and Democrats Pelosi and O'Rourke does not reflect reality. This picture was taken in May 2016  while Guzmn was in custody in Mexico awaiting extradition to the United States  in conjunction with a tour of three Trans-Pacific Trade Partnership countries undertaken by a bipartisan U.S. House delegation. The man standing next to Pelosi is not El Chapo, but then-President Enrique Pea Nieto of Mexico: tour Pelosi and a delegation of representatives met with Mexican President Enrique Pea Nieto, kicking off a three-country tour to discuss security, trade, migration and human rights. The delegation also included Democratic Reps. Norma Torres, Lucille Roybal-Allard, Pete Aguilar and Linda Sanchez (Calif.); Beto O'Rourke and Henry Cuellar (Texas); Ruben Gallego (Ariz.); Michelle Lujan Grisham (N.M.); and Republicans Michael Fitzpatrick (Pa.) and Richard Hanna (N.Y.). The U.S. delegation will also visit Peru and Chile, two Latin American countries that, along with Mexico, are signatories of the Trans-Pacific Trade Partnership, President Obama's signature trade deal. A better version of the photograph was contemporaneously posted to Facebook by U.S. Rep. Henry Cuellar of Texas, who was talking with Nieto at the time the picture was snapped (but was cropped out of the version used in the meme):  It is true that another drug lord claimed during El Chapo's January 2019 trial that the latter had paid a bribe of $100 million to Nieto, but the alleged bribe was supposed to have been solicited to induce Nieto to call off the authorities' attempts to find and arrest El Chapo, not to "keep the US/Mexico border open": claimed The former president of Mexico, Enrique Pea Nieto, took a $100 million bribe from Joaqun Guzmn Loera, the infamous crime lord known as El Chapo, according to a witness at Mr. Guzmans trial. The stunning testimony was delivered in a New York courtroom by Alex Cifuentes Villa, a Colombian drug lord who worked closely with Mr. Guzmn from 2007 to 2013, when the kingpin was hiding from the law at a series of remote ranches in the Sierra Madre mountains. According to Mr. Cifuentes, Mr. Pea Nieto first reached out to Mr. Guzmn about the time he was elected president in late 2012, asking the drug lord for $250 million in exchange for calling off a nationwide manhunt for him. Moreover, the bribe accusation against Nieto as related in court was both unproved and somewhat far-fetched: accusation Did members of the [Nieto] administration take bribes? says Alejandro Hope, a Mexican security analyst and columnist at the El Universal newspaper. Yeah maybe. But at the end of the day Guzmn was captured twice, then extradited. So if he did make those bribes they were a very poor investment. Taking handouts from business has become almost expected, especially among members of Pea Nietos PRI party, which ruled Mexico for 71 years. Taking a briefcase of cash from the worlds most sought-after drug lord, though, is a brazen, idiotic move, Hope says. You would think someone in that position could at least transfer it through shell companies in the Cayman Islands. Finally, O'Rourke did not run a "$70 million open borders campaign." His position on immigration has been to oppose the construction of a border-long wall (of the type U.S. President Donald Trump has called for) as an unnecessary and ineffective measure for improving border security, but not to advocate for "open borders": immigration Q: Would you accept some compromises here if you want to make changes, including, for instance, funding the president's border wall? A: I think this one is going to be on the American people. And I think, when we make the choice clear that we can do the right thing by this country and for those kids, and not do it at the price of a 2,000-mile, 30-foot-high, $30 billion wall; not doing it at the price of deporting people who are seeking asylum, deporting people in some cases back to certain death; not doing it at the cost of ending family migration, which is the story of this country -- certainly of the O'Rourkes -- and millions of families who have fled terror or starvation in their countries to be here. I think the American people are going to force us to do the right thing. That always happens in America. It is frustrating. It's slow. It doesn't happen right away. But, ultimately, we get it right. And I'm confident that the American people this time are going to get it right. We already have a border wall that we don't need. Don't need more walls and militarization at a time that the border has never been safer. pic.twitter.com/J6mdMUdyWL pic.twitter.com/J6mdMUdyWL  Beto O'Rourke (@BetoORourke) April 20, 2017 April 20, 2017  Nieto left office in December 2018, and El Chapo was sentenced to life in prison plus 30 years by a U.S. court in July 2019 and is currently serving his sentence at ADX Florence. sentenced Feuer, Alan.  "Former Mexican President Pea Nieto Took $100 Million Bribe, Witness at El Chapo Trial Says."
  The New York Times.  15 January 2019. Phippen, J. Weston.  "Did Former President Enrique Pena Nieto Take That $100 Million Bribe?'
  Rolling Stone.  16 January 2019. Dobuzinskis, Alex.  "Mexican Drug Lord 'El Chapo' Begins Life Term in Colorado 'Supermax' Prison."
  WKZO.  19 July 2019. Bernal, Rafael.  "Pelosi: Mexico Should Not Worry About Trump."
  The Hill.  3 May 2016. 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.  fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO As the COVID-19 pandemic ravaged the global economy in 2020, resulting in growing unemployment, governments scrambled to support people and businesses to varying degrees, announcing a range of stimulus relief funds meant to help struggling businesses and furloughed employees. By December 2020, lawmakers in the U.S. were also running out of time to pass another major coronavirus relief package. ravaged running out of time A meme began circulating in late 2020 that compared the U.S. governments stimulus checks -- given to a significant portion of the U.S. population -- to coronavirus relief funds deployed around the world. The meme effectively argued that the U.S. was not giving enough money to support workers compared with other countries. We broke down the numbers below and learned that, while the numbers are largely accurate, the meme was comparing apples to oranges.   Below are the respective stimulus relief funds being provided to populations around the world, particularly across Europe, Australia, and the U.K. In March 2020, the Australian government outlined a plan to subsidize the wages of 6 million people in order to keep them in their jobs. The plan would pay employees at any company that saw a 30% reduction in revenue around $1,500 Australian dollars (the equivalent of $928 U.S. dollars according to Reuters) every two weeks. March 2020 outlined pay Reuters This calculation would amount to $1,856 U.S. dollars per month. But according to conversion rates calculated by Newsweek in April, the relief check amounted to around $1,993 per month. Based on current conversion rates calculated on Google Finance, this same amount would now be more than $2,200 every four weeks. Newsweek Australia also had a number of other social security measures including one-off Economic Support Payments of AU$750 in April and July 2020 to qualifying recipients.  Economic Support Payments The Canadian government provides $500 Canadian dollars per week for up to 26 weeks for workers who stopped working or had their income reduced by at least 50% due to COVID-19. Based on current conversion rates on Google, this amounts to around $1,565 U.S. dollars per month. The meme presumably pulled their data from Newsweek's April 2020 story, which calculated the amount as being $1,433 U.S. dollars per month at that time. provides Newsweek Overall, the Canadian government aims to spend up to $75 billion U.S. dollars in emergency aid and economic stimulus to assist members of their population who are struggling financially. Measures include boosting child benefit payments, wage subsidies for small businesses, and tax relief measures. Overall The Danish government will cover up to 75% of employee salaries in private companies as long as those companies agree to not fire people. According to Flemming Larsen, a professor at the Center for Labor Market Research at Denmarks Aalborg University, this would amount to up to $3,288 per month (roughly based on the conversion rate at the time of the interview), which lines up with the number in the meme. For hourly workers who qualify, the government would cover 90% of their wages. Flemming Larsen hourly workers The deal, which was struck between the government and trade unions, covers companies who have to lay off at least 30% of their staff, or 50 staff or more. But this particular form of coverage does not support the self-employed and other vulnerable groups. deal self-employed According to The Guardian, more than 12 million people in France are covered by a partial unemployment scheme that covers 70% of salaries when companies are forced to reduce or suspend work, which is up to 6,927 euros per month (which according to Newsweeks calculations in April were $7,575 U.S. dollars, but around $8,400 today). Employees previously on minimum wage receive 100% coverage of their salaries. The Guardian $7,575 U.S. dollars The French government is also giving paid leave to parents who cannot work from home and who are responsible for children younger than 16. paid leave The German scheme covers 10 million workers according to The Guardian, paying up to 67% of net wages lost due to shorter hours, to a maximum of 6,700 euros per month (again, $7,326.78 U.S. dollars in April according to Newsweek, but $8,125 today) for employees with children and 60% for those without children. The Guardian $7,326.78 The budget also includes a 50 billion euro program to help the self-employed and small businesses threatened with bankruptcy, giving them direct payments of up to 15,000 euros (more than $18,000). Irelands temporary wage subsidy scheme allows affected companies to recoup up to 70% of their net income up to 21,400 euros until May. After May 4, 2020, the scheme became more generous, paying an 85% subsidy up to the same amount. temporary wage subsidy After May 4, employees would be given a maximum of 350 euros per week if they earned less than or equal to 412 euros per week, and they would receive a maximum of 410 euros per week if they earned between 500 and 586 euros per week. 410 euros amounted to $448.36 U.S. dollars per week according to Newsweek in April, which matches up with the memes calculation of $1793.44. Today that amounts to around $1,987. May 4 Newsweek The Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme reimburses companies for 80% of their gross salaries up to 2,500 pounds per month (which amounts to around $3,300 U.S. dollars today, and according to Newsweek was $3,084 in April). As of August, some workers were able to return to their jobs part-time, and in November the government extended the scheme until March 31, 2021. Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme Newsweek November The U.S. government did indeed give many qualifying people a one-time stimulus relief check of $1,200, which on the surface appears to be to a small fraction of what these other countries appear to be giving workers who are unemployed or in danger of being furloughed. This check was given to individual taxpayers who made less than $75,000 in adjusted gross income in 2018. They would receive between $600 and $1,200 with the highest earners getting the maximum payment. one-time given But this meme did not account for the overall stimulus package, including unemployment benefits and additional funds granted for dependents. The data from other countries showcased relief funds for helping the unemployed or preventing lay-offs, so the numbers were comparing two totally different items. The CARES Act, a $2 trillion dollar relief bill that was passed in March 2020, increased unemployment benefits and added $600 dollars per week from the federal government on top of whatever base amount workers received from their state. The legislation also added 13 weeks of unemployment insurance. However, many of the provisions from this expired in July. The Families First Coronavirus Response Act also expanded paid family and medical leave options for some workers. A new relief bill is being debated by congress, with Republicans and Democrats disagreeing over how much stimulus the U.S. economy needs. CARES Act Families First Coronavirus Response Act debated Given that the numbers cited in the meme compare very different stimulus packages around the world, with a range of complex provisions, to a one-time payment in the U.S. that does not reflect the full stimulus relief package, we rate this claim a Mixture. To counter Republican criticism that the stimulus money is not being spent fast enough, Vice President Joe Biden has been traveling the country to boast about the recovery plan's success stories.In conjunction with a July 9, 2009, trip to Ohio, Biden's office put out a news release with this talking point: Across the country, $174 billion of the Recovery Act have been committed in its first 130 days.The White House says it is getting the numbers from its own Web site, Recovery.gov. We counted 130 days after Obama signed the bill on Feb. 17, which took us to June 27. On that day, the government had committed $157.8 billion, slightly less than the $174 billion cited by Biden.Those numbers are culled from weekly reports submitted by all federal agencies. The total stimulus cost will ultimately be roughly $787 billion, with about $499 billion for new spending. (The other $288 billion is for tax relief.) So that means that about 35 percent of the spending ($174.9 billion of $499 billion) has been allocated so far.That might sound like a lot, but Republican critics complain the money is just trickling out. For example, Sen. Jon Kyl, the No. 2 Republican in the Senate, complained last week that only 6.8 percent of the stimulus package has been spent.The numbers can be confusing, making you wonder whether Kyl is right about the 6.8 percent or Biden is right about the 35 percent. So we investigated and found that, like so many things in the federal budgeting process, it all comes down to semantics.John Porcari, deputy secretary of the Department of Transportation, wrote how this confusion is playing out in miniature at his agency, after getting what he considered some bad press in aUSA Todaystory that maintained that only $132 million of the total $27.5 billion earmarked for road construction funding has been spent.Indeed, there's a big difference between how much money the government has already spent  that figure is about $60 billion, according to the White House  and how much the government has obligated or committed to a project.Whenever a state obligates or dedicates their Recovery dollars to a project that means it is green-lighted, Porcari wrote on Recovery.gov. States can start advertising the project and soliciting bids and once a bid is awarded contractors can buy supplies, bring workers on board and start breaking ground. It could be weeks before the reimbursement process starts so those outlays are in no way an indicator of how much money is getting to states, how much work is being done or how many people are working. The $16 billion obligated to thousands of highway projects is the true measure of how much highway money is reaching states.Using his definition, about $16 billion has been obligated to road construction projects, far more than what's actually been spent.So for practical purposes, money committed is the same as obligated and allocated. It's money that will be spent on a particular project.It's fair to use those broader terms, according to Jim Horney, a budget expert at the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, because the guarantee of the money can sometimes be enough to keep an agency or a company from laying off a worker.It's not just when the check has been written that we see an impact, he said.Take Virginia, for example. Earlier in the year, lawmakers were planning to lay off teachers to save cash. But when the stimulus passed, the state knew it would be getting some financial relief, so officials changed their budget to keep those teachers employed.The money isn't in the state treasury at that moment, but it still has a ripple effect on the economy, Horney said.If [teachers] knew they would be laid off, they would have started saving money, stopped buying clothes, preparing for hard times ahead, he said. Knowing they would have a job in the coming school year, teachers were less likely to adopt austerity measures.Horney had this caveat: Impact on the economy depends on how quickly the money is actually spent or reimbursed. If it takes five years for the government to pay a state back for a project, then the state may take some cost-cutting measures in the meantime.Conservatives, though, say the true measurement of economic impact is money actually spent, said Brian Riedl of the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.The economic theory behind the stimulus suggests only actual outlays can create jobs and drive money through the economy, he said.So back to Biden. He said that $174 billion had been committed at the 130-day mark. Federal records show he was a little off. The administration's Recovery.gov site shows that $157.8 billion had been committed. So we give Biden a Mostly True. In vetoingHouse Bill 535, a measure dealing with how state agencies select and buy goods, Gov. Rick Perry said, Current law already requires state agencies to give preference to goods produced and grown in Texas. Perry said in apress releaseMay 25, 2013, the day of the veto, that HB 535 requires state agencies, when purchasing goods, to give preference to goods manufactured in Texas. This bill simply does not change current law. Soon after, a reader emailed us to ask: Is this truly in current law? The law that the bill would have modified is inSection 2155.444of the state's Government Code, which says that when making purchases of goods, including agricultural products, the comptroller and state agencies shall give preference to those produced or grown in this state or offered by Texas bidders. Next, the law says, goods from elsewhere in the United States must be considered. State law has contained Texas-first purchasing preferences for more than 50 years. According to a May 4, 1981, state attorney generalopinion, the Legislature created Texas preferences with a 1957 law which replaced an older statute favoring bidders who have an established local business. The1957 law, according to the opinion, created a preference for products produced in Texas as well as one for products offered by Texas citizens. HB 535, asfiledJan. 15, 2013,byRep. Yvonne Davis, D-Dallas, added manufactured to produced or grown and included a definition: Manufactured means, with respect to assembled goods, the final assembly, processing, packaging, testing, or other process that adds value, quality, or reliability. It added a requirement that the state comptroller shall promote the purchase of such Texas-grown or otherwise Texas-created goods. In the legislationsfinal version, that definition encompassed items produced as a result of a manufacturing process that alters the form or function of components in a way that adds value and transforms the parts into something different from what simply assembling the parts would have produced. Both versions also added a requirement that the state comptroller and state agencies promote the purchase of Texas goods. Ed Sills, spokesman for the Texas AFL-CIO labor federation, which supported the vetoed proposal, told us by phone that the combined effect of requiring such promotion, emphasizing manufactured goods and encouraging agencies to buy Texan, buy American could have been powerful. Current law does have preferences. It doesnt have as robust a preference as it would have if this bill had passed, Sills said. A spokesman for the state comptrollers office -- whichcounselsstate agencies on purchasing -- said by email that the state interprets the current law to cover goods manufactured in Texas. R.J. DeSilva said, Texas agencies have always considered the term produced to include manufactured goods. Therefore, the preference for manufactured goods was already being provided. DeSilva sent us a link tocomptroller procurement rulesin the Texas Administrative Code stating, Supplies, materials, and equipment are considered to be produced in Texas if they are manufactured in Texas; manufactured does not include the work of packaging or repackaging. Our ruling Perry said, Current law already requires state agencies to give preference to goods produced and grown in Texas. That holds up. Existinglawsays that when making purchases of goods, the comptroller and state agencies shall give preference to those produced or grown in this state or offered by Texas bidders. And the comptroller operates under rules that say items manufactured in Texas are considered to be produced in Texas. We rate Perrys statement as True. One of the more unusual and complicated theories associated with the sovereign citizen and tax protester movements is the belief that lawyers who are members of bar associations in the United States are, in fact, agents of the British crown and do not have legitimate status in American courts. This theory is partly informed by a false but widely repeated claim that the word "bar" in this context is an acronym for "British Accreditation Register":  Here's how the elaborate and confusing theory is outlined in an anonymously-authored essay called "Hiding Behind the Bar," which has been republished and shared in tax protester and sovereign citizen circles for more than a decade: essay During the middle 1600's, the Crown of England established a formal registry in London where barristers [lawyers] were ordered by the Crown to be accredited. The establishment of this first International Bar Association allowed barrister-lawyers from all nations to be formally recognized and accredited by the only recognized accreditation society. From this, the acronym BAR was established denoting (informally) the British Accredited Registry, whose members became a powerful and integral force within the International Bar Association (IBA). Although this has been denied repeatedly as to its existence, the acronym BAR stood for the British barrister-lawyers who were members of the larger IBA. Almost every part of this is factually inaccurate. For one thing, the International Bar Association was founded in 1947, not in the 1600s. Second, we could find no evidence of the existence of a professional association for lawyers called the "British Accredited Registry," either in 2018 or at any previous time in history. 1947 A History of the American Bar, a 1911 book by the Pulitzer Prize-winning legal scholar Charles Warren, contains no mention of any "British Accredited Registry" or "British Accreditation Registry" (with "accredited" and "accreditation" being used variously in different versions of this conspiracy theory). It would also make little sense for a group of lawyers in 17th century England to form a group describing itself as "British." Great Britain (composed of England, Wales and Scotland) does not have, and has never had, a unified courts system, instead being separated into two systems: England and Wales and Scotland. In fact, Great Britain itself was not even formally created until 1707, when the Acts of Union joined the Kingdom of Scotland with the Kingdom of England (which included Wales). book accreditation England and Wales Acts of Union But more broadly, this theory offers a confused summary of the history of "the bar." In the Middle Ages, lawyers in London established four "Inns of Court": Lincoln's Inn, the Inner Temple, the Middle Temple, and Gray's Inn. These were physical buildings but, more figuratively, they were also the professional associations for lawyers working in the more important English courts. A "barrister" was a legal expert or advocate who has been "called to the bar." This is a metonymic phrase which is rooted in the physical barrier that was present in a courtroom, to separate fully qualified lawyers entitled to plead cases before a judge from (roughly speaking) trainee lawyers and members of the public. In modern times, this physical barrier generally separates participants in a trial (such as lawyers, clerks, defendants, the jury, and the judge) from the gallery in which members of the public and the news media sit. established metonymic So someone who has been "called to the bar" has been given the right to advocate before a judge and is thereby known as a "barrister." A "bar association" is, roughly speaking, a professional association for lawyers, akin to a guild. In some jurisdictions, bar associations are limited to barristers (as opposed to solicitors, a different type of lawyer); whereas in others, they are open to all members of the legal profession. In some jurisdictions a bar association is the body that licenses and regulates legal professionals, and in others it is merely a professional association. The "BAR" conspiracy theory essay goes on to say: When America was still a chartered group of British colonies under patent  established in what was formally named the British Crown territory of New England  the first British Accredited Registry (BAR) was established in Boston during 1761 to attempt to allow only accredited barrister-lawyers access to the British courts of New England. This was the first attempt to control who could represent defendants in the court at or within the bar in America. Today, each corporate STATE in America has it's [sic] own BAR Association, i.e. The Florida Bar or the California Bar, that licenses government officer attorneys, NOT lawyers. In reality, the U.S. courts only allow their officer attorneys to freely enter within the bar while prohibiting those learned of the law  lawyers  to do so. They prevent advocates, lawyers, counselors, barristers and solicitors from entering through the outer bar. Only licensed BAR Attorneys are permitted to freely enter within the bar separating the people from the bench because all BAR Attorneys are officers of the court itself. Does that tell you anything? A 1930 essay published in the Cornell Law Review (page 393) refers to a bar association's having been established in Boston in 1761, but remember that a bar association is no more than a kind of guild for lawyers. "Bar" is not an acronym for "British Accredited Registry," because that acronym is a fabrication. As with many sovereign citizen theories, the essay builds on the shaky foundations of an inaccurate account of the history of bar associations in the United States and draws confused conclusions about the function and legal status of lawyers. page 393 Many of these claims are based on the etymology of certain words, rather than their modern meaning. For example, the author of the essay referenced above presents the origins of the word "attorney," citing Webster's 1828 dictionary definition, as: "In the feudal law, to turn, or transfer homage and service from one lord to another." That essay also proclaims: Here's where the whole word game gets really tricky. In each State, every licensed BAR Attorney calls himself an Attorney at Law. Look at the definitions above and see for yourself that an Attorney at Law is nothing more than an attorney  one who transfers allegiance and property to the ruling land owner. That passage is false. Whatever the older origins of the word "attorney" might be, the modern definition of that word is much broader. Merriam-Webster defines an attorney as simply "one who is legally appointed to transact business on another's behalf." In common American parlance, "attorney" is used interchangeably with "lawyer." defines This fixation on word origins leads to something like a game of Telephone in the logic of the conspiracy theory, with false conclusions being drawn from inaccurate or incomplete premises. Here are more examples, summarized from the essay: The historical origins of the word "esquire" did have to do with the transfer of property between feudal land-owners, but that was hundreds of years ago. This argument is roughly analogous to claiming that because the title "Ph.D" derives from the Latin "philosophiae doctor" ("doctor of philosophy"), microbiologists with Ph.D at the end of their names have no legal right to conduct scientific research because they are actually philosophers and not scientists. "A BAR [British Accredited Registry] licensed Attorney is not an advocate," the theory goes on to falsely claim, "so how can he do anything other than what his real purpose is?": He can't plead on your behalf because that would be a conflict of interest. He can't represent the crown (ruling government) as an official officer at the same time he is allegedly representing a defendant. His sworn duty as a BAR Attorney is to transfer your ownership, rights, titles, and allegiance to the land owner. When you hire a BAR Attorney to represent you in their courts, you have hired an officer of that court whose sole purpose and occupation is to transfer what you have to the creator and authority of that court.  It's not clear what the origins of the the fabricated acronym are, but "British Accredited Registry" was invoked as early as 2001 by Austin Gary Cooper, a long-time "sovereign citizen" activist. In 2003, a U.S. District Court in Colorado barred Cooper and his wife Martha Cooper from selling advice on how to avoid paying federal income tax after the couple set up groups called "Taking Back America" and the "Ten Foundation," which advised their paying customers that they could renounce their United States citizenship, call themselves "American citizens" instead, and escape their tax obligations. In 2006, Cooper was given a six-month prison sentence for criminal contempt after failing to comply with that court order, which obliged him to hand over the names of his customers, among other requirements. During court proceedings, Cooper accused the judge of treason and called him a "Nazi bastard" and a "British Accredited Registry" lawyer, saying: "You people are going to destroy our country. British accredited registry bar association, you're going to destroy our country ..." 2001 barred sentence proceedings In 2017, prosecutors in Tennessee charged Cooper, who is now 69 years old, with 10 counts of forgery and filing a fraudulent lien. The case was ongoing as of January 2018. charged ongoing Warren, Charles.  "A History of the American Bar."
   Little, Brown and Company, 1911. U.K. Parliament.  "Act of Union 1707."
  U.K. Parliament.  Unknown publication date. Wickser, Philip J.  "Bar Associations."
  Cornell Law Review  (Vol. 15.3, April 1930). Babcock, Chief Judge Lewis T.  "Permanent Injunction Order, U.S.A v. Austin Gary Cooper et al."
  U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.  20 November 2003. Morlin, Bill.  "Ten Sovereign Citizens Face 320 Felonies in Tennessee."
  Southern Poverty Law Center.  28 March 2017. On Feb. 15, 2019, a pregnant waitress in her third trimester received a generous $100 tip after serving lunch to a cop. It happened at the Lamp Post Diner in Clementon, New Jersey. A Voorhees County police officer had ordered a lunch that cost less than $9. He paid his bill and left the diner before the waitress, Courtney English, was shown the receipt by the hostess. The story ended up being reported by local and national news media. NJ.com reported that the tip "brought her to tears": local national reported As Courtney English worked the lunch crowd Friday at the Lamp Post Diner, she got to chatting with customers about the upcoming birth of her first child. English is nearly eight months pregnant and has been working at the Gloucester Township diner to save as much money as possible before her daughter arrives. What happened next brought her to tears. A police officer dining on a salad at a nearby table must have overheard the conversation, she said. When he left to pay the bill, the anonymous officer included a $100 tip on the $8.75 check, along with a simple note: "Enjoy your first. You will never forget it. This was all true. Then a viral content website seized on the story for profit. The person or people behind the website HouseDiver, which claimed to be managed from Israel, dramatized the tale of kindness into a 71-page slideshow-style article. Most of the pages contained about three sentences each. Since at least January 2021, the HouseDiver article was advertised on the Taboola advertising platform with a misleading headline: "Pregnant Waitress Charges Cop $9 For Lunch, Moments Later She Runs To The Manager." Another ad read: "[Pic] Heavily Pregnant Waitress Runs To Her Boss In Tears After Seeing What Cop Left Next To Bill."   The strategy behind HouseDiver's 71-page article was known as advertising "arbitrage." The goal for the website was to make more money on the ads displayed on each of the 71 pages than it cost to run the initial ad that lured readers to the story in the first place. HouseDiver appeared to have located a number of pictures of English and her child, who was born weeks after English received the $100 tip. The viral content website used multiple photographs of her child without her permission. We contacted English, who was eager to set the record straight. We asked her if she had seen the misleading and dramatized version of the story. "I came across all of that too and was very upset," English said. She confirmed to us that she did not "run to the manager." Further, she said that the story's writers "came up with some really outlandish things" and that much of it was "over-exaggerated." We also notified her that it appeared pictures of her and her child had been used without her permission. "Definitely without my permission," she said. Honestly, I just find it inappropriate that pictures I didnt give permission to be used are all over the internet. Pictures of my minor child are being shared with false information and I just feel its an invasion of our privacy, as well as I didnt consent to it. As for the real story of the waitress, the cop, and the $100 tip, Courtney English's father, Brian, shared his thoughts in a Facebook post. It read, in part: waitress Facebook post What a wonderful person to not only leave a VERY generous tip, but a lovely message. I don't know you Mr. Police Officer, but you made my little girl cry, and made her year. Thank you. I always had the utmost respect for officers, but you went above and beyond not just an officer, but a beautiful human being. God Bless. We provided information to English regarding how she can report the advertisement to the Taboola advertising platform. We also directed her to the contact page for housediver.com, the website that hosted her child's pictures without her permission. For further reading, we have previously reported on a similar instance of a viral content website seizing on another true story about something that was hidden in a necklace. previously reported 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. submit ads to us In June 2016, several pundits misquoted, paraphrased, or presented incomplete or inaccurate versions of a 2001 speech delivered by Sonia Sotomayor at the University of California in an attempt to defend Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump's recent comments about U.S. District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel. In an interview with CNN, Trump said that Curiel should recuse himself from a case he's overseeing against the now-defunct Trump University, since he may not be able to give him a fair trial due to his Mexican heritage: interview The presumptive GOP nominee claims that his plan to build a massive wall along the U.S. border with Mexico has resulted in a conflict of interest for Curiel in the case over Trumps for-profit university.Hes proud of his heritage, OK? Im building a wall, Trump told Tapper. Hes a Mexican. Were building a wall between here and Mexico, he added.Tapper, however, pointed out that Curiel was born in Indiana.We live in a society thats very pro-Mexico, and thats fine. Thats all fine, Trump said at another point in the interview. But I think he should recuse himself.Because hes a Latino? Tapper asked.Im building a wall, Trump maintained. While several Republicans have denounced Trump's statements (House Speaker Paul Ryan called it "textbook racism"), others have used Sotomayor's speech to come to his defense. For instance, television personality Eric Bolling equated Sotomayor's comments with the comments made by Trump: textbook racism equated Justice Sotomayor said, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would often make, often more than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasnt lived that life. Better conclusion, not a different conclusion, a better conclusion. She went on to say that our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Shes basically saying her heritage will determine how she will find cases, not the merits of the case, but what her experiences are. Pundit Ann Coulter bashed Paul Ryan on Twitter, questioning why the House Speaker did not call Sotomayor a "textbook racist":   In 2001, Sonia Sotomayor delivered the annual "Olmos Memorial Lecture" at the UC Berkeley School of Law. Sotomayor (who was at that point an appeals court judge) took issue with a quote attributed to Justice Sandra Day O'Connor: delivered Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life. While Sotomayor's speech was centered on the idea that her experiences as a Latina woman influenced her thought process, she never said (as insinuated by Bolling) that her heritage  rather than the merits of the case  would determine her decisions. Instead, Sotomayor said that her heritage does not limit her ability to understand the values or needs of people from different backgrounds: I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown. However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage. This is not the first time that Sotomayor's 2001 speech has been scrutinized. In 2009, during Sotomayor's confirmation hearings to the Supreme Court, the soon-to-be justice clarified her comments: scrutinized "I was trying to inspire (students) to believe their experiences would enrich the legal system," Sotomayor said Tuesday. "I was also trying to inspire them to believe they could become anything they wanted to become, just as I have." She said the context of her words created a misunderstanding. "I want to state upfront, unequivocally and without doubt: I do not believe that any ethnic, racial or gender group has an advantage in sound judging," she said. "I do believe every person has an equal opportunity to be a good and wise judge, regardless of their background or life experience." Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor did deliver a speech in 2001 in which she talked about how her experience as a Latina woman could influence her thought process, as everyone has different life experiences to draw from. However, unlike the sentiment expressed by Donald Trump in his comments about Judge Gonzalo Curiel, Sotomayor argued that diversity was essential to the progress of law. During a visit to Howell, Mich., President Joe Biden touted key agenda items under negotiation in Congress. One of the proposals he wants to see receive final Congressional approval is support for child care, which he said would benefit both children and their parents, including mothers who want to take jobs outside the home. How can we compete in the world if millions of American parents, especially moms, cant join the workforce because they cant afford the cost of child care or elder care? They have to stay home, Bidensaidin the Oct. 5 speech. He went on to say that the United States had fallen behind its industrialized peers in the percentage of women in the labor force. Thirty years ago, the United States ranked sixth among advanced economies in the share of women in the workforce, Biden said. You know where we are today? Twenty-three. Twenty-two countries have a higher percentage of their women in the workforce making a competitive wage than the United States. While our competitors are investing in the care economy, were standing still. Has the United States really fallen so far behind in womens participation in the labor force? Our research shows it has. We asked the White House for a source, and they pointed to data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a think tank that studies advanced industrialized nations. The data broadly supports how Biden characterized the shifts between 1990 and 2020. There are multiple ways to measure the phenomenon Biden addressed  notably, what age ranges are used. If you look at the labor force participation rate for all women at least 15 years of age, the United States ranked seventh in 1990, behind Denmark, Sweden, Estonia, Finland, Norway and Canada. But by2020, the United States ranking had fallen to 17th. (Labor force participation rate refers to the percentage of a given group that is either employed or is actively seeking work.) An alternative statistic  the labor force participation rate for women in the prime working ages of 25 to 54  shows an even steeper U.S. decline. In1990, the United States ranked seventh, behind the same six countries. But by2020, the U.S. had fallen to 31st. The White House used a slightly different version of the OECD data than we did, which accounts for the differences in the U.S. rankings. But multiple economists told us that the differences in rankings were minor, and that the trend line was much more important. Specifically, the U.S. percentage of women working basically stagnated over those 30 years, even as 13 nations leapfrogged the U.S. between 1990 and 2020: Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Israel, Japan, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Portugal, Spain, and the United Kingdom. However you define it, I think the president is highlighting genuine trends, said Gary Burtless, an economist with the Brookings Institution. Historically, women in the U.S. gravitated to the labor force earlier than women in other countries did. Right after World War II, only about one-third of U.S. women were in the labor force, but by the late 1990s, that percentage had risen steeply, to the low-60% range. Since then, however, it has plateaued and even fallen modestly overall. By the early 1990s, the United States ranked higher on this measurement than most of its economic peers. Since the 1990s, the downturn has been driven mostly by married women with a college degree, particularly those married to high-earning men, said Stefania Albanesi, an economist at the University of Pittsburgh. Albanesi said her research suggests that a rise in earnings of college-educated men, particularly those at the top of the income distribution, has reduced the pressure for married women to take paying work outside the home. As the U.S. rate began to fall, other nations caught up. Several factors drove these international shifts, economists say. One is that women in other countries have belatedly made gains in educational attainment, giving them a boost in the labor market. But perhaps the biggest difference comes from the lack of social policies in the United States that enable women with children to take jobs. The policies that are common in other industrialized countries but not in the U.S. include publicly provided child care services, an entitlement to paid parental leave, laws giving workers the right to demand a change to a part-time work schedule without exception and without being discriminated against, said Mihaela Pintea, an economist at Florida International University. The upshot of the lack of such policies in the U.S. is that its costly or burdensome for women with kids to remain in the workforce after they have a child, Burtless said. Claudia Goldin, a Harvard University economist, cautioned that its tricky to make cross-national comparisons on labor-force participation. Perhaps the biggest factor complicating Bidens comparison is that countries define part-time work differently. Generally speaking, when looking only at participation among women who work full-time hours, the U.S. ranks higher in international comparisons, Goldin said. If you did this comparison just for full-time work, wed be up there, she said. If you weighted by hours, wed be up there. Pintea added that, despite grim statistics like those cited by Biden, U.S. women who are working may still be better positioned in some ways. Effectively, the U.S. labor market environment pushes women to either skip working entirely or take a full-time job, rather than finding a middle ground. In a lot of other countries, women might work part-time as opposed to full time and may be less likely to be promoted into managerial positions, or may have lower wages than their male counterparts because of their career path, she said. Biden said, Thirty years ago, the United States ranked sixth among advanced economies in the share of women in the workforce. You know where we are today? Twenty-three. The specific rankings vary a bit depending on what measure one uses, though by one measurement, the U.S. position is even worse than Biden said. The general conclusion is the same: The United States used to rank near the top of the pack of industrialized countries in womens participation in the labor force, but over the past 30 years, many other countries have leapfrogged the U.S. in that measurement, as the rate in the U.S. stagnated or even fell. Economists say the U.S. rate has been lagging for several reasons, including a lack of government policies encouraging child care and paid leave and other countries catching up to the United States earlier gains in womens educational attainment. We rate the statement Mostly True. On 28 December 2015, an image purportedly showing a shark attacking two motorists stranded on a flooded Missouri highway started going viral on Facebook:  Before we examine the origins of the above-displayed image, let's take a moment to judge the authenticity of the photograph based on simple common sense. The man in the above-displayed picture is standing in about thigh-high water, and since the average male in the United States is about5 foot 9, we can reasonably assume that the water is no more than a fewfeet deep. The rest of the lane is visible in the upper left-hand corner of the image, so it appears that this flood only affected a small portion of the roadway. Also, Missouri is a landlocked state in the central U.S. far from any ocean, so any flood waters in that area would likely be fresh water and not salt water. All of these factors make the pictured site a highly unlikely habitat for the ocean-going great white shark species. average In fact, a larger version of the image clearly shows that entire road is not flooded:  The text accompanying the image alleges that the incident took place in Missouri, a Midwestern state located about 400 miles north of the Gulf of Mexico:  While that is not an impossible distance for a great white shark to travel, it is highly implausible that a large sea creature such as a shark would be able to traverse a fresh water river all the way from the ocean up toMissouri. (A story earlier this year about a bull shark caught in the Missouri River turned out to bean April Fool's joke.) story The Facebook post also mentions that the shark attack victims pictured were recent recipients of Mark Zuckerberg's alleged $4.5 million giveaway. This is another indication that the photograph is a jape, since the claim that the founder of Facebook was giving away money to random people on Facebook was itself a hoax. money While Bill Tennison scored a viral hit in December 2015 when he claimed that a motorist was attacked by a shark on a flooded highway in Missouri, he wasn't the first person to sharethis fake photograph. This image has been circulatingonline since at least 2000 and has been attached to flood waters in Ireland, Houston, Englandand New Orleans. Ireland Houston England New Orleans Also, as many commenters have pointed out, the license plates, road signs, and cars seen in the image indicate the pictured road is more likely located somewhere in the United Kingdom than Missouri. Update: We received the following comment on 31 December 2015 from Stephen Rushbrook. Rushbrook This was taken by Computer game Artist Russell Hughes when he was working for Stainless Games back at our farmhouse offices in the Isle of Wight That spot is infamous for flooding. So on that stormy day we were all by the roadside laughing at those who didn't know how to drive through a flood. Later (after the pub, blacksmiths arms just up the road) he turned his photo into this. He then sent it to the company. It escaped when Matt Edmunds sent it to his friend at Reuters. It then became 'news picture of the day' and that was that. Within the day we were getting emails from our friends from round the world saying have you seen this ? Btw it was taken here Dropped pinnear The Middle Rd, Newport, Isle of Wight PO30 4HPhttps://goo.gl/maps/noY1ehkSvcS2 https://goo.gl/maps/noY1ehkSvcS2 On April 17, 2022, the Anxiety Freedom Today Facebook page shared a post with a quote credited to movie actor Denzel Washington, including the words, "Just because you don't share it on social media doesn't mean you're not up to big things. Live it and stay low-key. Privacy is everything." It was somewhat ironic that the post about the state of social media led many of its users to respond with the words, "So true!" Facebook post quote Denzel Washington  Washington has talked before on the subject of the state of social media. It's also entirely possible that Washington might agree with the sentiment of this quote. However, there's no record he ever said these words. The quote was misattributed, meaning that it originally came from someone else. Washington Washington The quote appeared to have originated in a 2016 tweet from author Idil Ahmed on the @idillionaire Twitter account: tweet  This was not the first time this sort of thought was put into words. However, this was the first record of these exact words that we could find. not the first time It wasn't until 2018, two years after @idillionaire's tweet was created, that Washington's name first appeared with the quote. A fake tweet screenshot began going around that purportedly came from the @Denzel Twitter account. However, that account doesn't exist: Washington   This isn't a real tweet. It was likely made using a fake tweet creator website. Also, it could be debated that if Washington were to join Twitter, he probably wouldn't use this profile picture. And as of April 2022, Washington did not appear to have an official Twitter account. An account named @OfficialDenzel was active on Twitter in the past. However, that account is not verified by the social media platform, and it's unclear if it has any affiliation with the actor. Washington verified After the quote about social media appeared in the fake tweet screenshot with Washington's name and face, it was shared as text and in memes: Washington      From these posts and memes, the quote then spread to websites that collect quotes from famous people. For example, Goodreads.com has a page dedicated to the misattributed quote, even though Washington never said the words. (Over the years, we've found that these kinds of websites that collect quotes aren't reliable sources of information, no matter how high they show up in Google search results.) page Washington Again, there's no record of Washington ever saying, "Just because you don't share it on social media, doesn't mean you're not up to big things. Live it and stay low key. Privacy is everything." However, as we mentioned, he has given his thoughts before about the state of social media. Washington For example, he once talked to CBN News about the subject in this Facebook video from November 2017: video  In the video, Washington said the following about the potentially negative effects of social media: Washington Turn it off. That's what I'd say. It's hard for young people now because [] they're addicted. If you don't think you're addicted, and I'm talking about anyone, from the highest to the lowest. If you don't think you're addicted, then see if you can turn it off for a week. It got quiet in here, didn't it? Didn't it get real quiet? It's a tool, so we should use it. God has blessed us with free will. Now it's free will magnified. Free will on steroids. You're free to go in any direction you want. It will allow you, and it's not the enemy. It's just a reflection of our own free will. And we all want to be liked. But now we want to be liked by 16 million. And now, some of us will do anything to be liked. We used to do anything to be liked, but it was by the person in front of you. Now it's to be liked by 16 million people that you don't know. We have to ask ourselves what is the long-term if not the short-term effect of too much information. The video, which was also reposted elsewhere, resulted in various users replying (again, on social media) about the effects of social media with the words, "So true!" reposted Washington also spoke about the subject in a YouTube video that was posted in 2017: Washington YouTube video  In sum, while it's true that Washington has spoken before about the potential dangers of social media, there's no record he ever said the following quote: "Just because you don't share it on social media doesn't mean you are not up to big things. Live it and stay low key. Privacy is everything." Washington As a parting thought, we also noticed that the quote was being misattributed with Washington's name on Reddit. At the bottom of the page, the very last comment appeared to receive no attention or upvotes. However, it made a strong point through the use of humor: misattributed Washington Reddit   Ahmed, Idil. Twitter, 5 Nov. 2016, https://twitter.com/idillionaire/status/795016449915879424. Anxiety Freedom Today. Facebook, 17 Apr. 2022, https://www.facebook.com/anxietyfreedomtoday/posts/1894667707400613. CyberGhostUltimate. "Just Because You Dont Share It on Social Media, Doesn't Mean You Are Not up to Big Things. Live It and Stay Low-Key. Privacy Is Everything. - Denzel Washington." R/Privacy on Reddit, 4 July 2021, www.reddit.com/r/privacy/comments/ode5ls/just_because_you_dont_share_it_on_social_media/. Denzel Washington Warns Young People about an Overlooked Danger That Could Be Destroying Them. CBN News, 2017, https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=10159957363410393. deyavelii. Denzel Washington Speaks on Social Media. YouTube, 2017, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8ZV2DwgG8E.