Stella Awards
Claim:  Six outrageous-but-real lawsuits showcase the need for tort reform. Status:  False. Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2001] This is what's wrong with the world:        1. January 2000: Kathleen Robertson of Austin Texas was awarded $780,000.00 by a jury of her peers after breaking her ankle tripping over a toddler who was running amuck inside a furniture store.  The owners of the store were understandably surprised at the verdict, considering the misbehaving tyke was Ms. Robertson's son. 2. June 1998: A 19 year old Carl Truman of Los Angeles won $74,000.00 and medical expenses when his neighbor ran his hand over with a Honda Accord.  Mr. Truman apparently didn't notice someone was at the wheel of the car whose hubcap he was trying to steal. 3. October 1998: A Terrence Dickson of Bristol Pennsylvania was exiting a house he finished robbing by way of the garage. He was not able to get the garage door to go up, because the automatic door opener was malfunctioning.  He couldn't re-enter the house because the door connecting the house and garage locked when he pulled it shut. The family was on vacation, so Mr. Dickson found himself locked in the garage for eight days. He subsisted on a case of Pepsi he found, and a large bag of dry dog food.  This upset Mr. Dickson, so he sued the homeowner's insurance claiming the situation caused him undue mental anguish. The jury agreed to the tune of half a million dollars and change. 4. October 1999: Jerry Williams of Little Rock Arkansas was awarded $14,500.00 and medical expenses after being bitten on the buttocks by his next door neighbor's beagle. The beagle was on a chain in its owner's fenced-in yard, as was Mr. Williams. The award was less than sought after because the jury felt the dog may have been provoked by Mr. Williams who, at the time, was shooting it repeatedly with a pellet gun. 5. May 2000: A Philadelphia restaurant was ordered to pay Amber Carson of Lancaster, Pennsylvania $113,500.00 after she slipped on a spilled soft drink and broke her coccyx. The beverage was on the floor because Ms. Carson threw it at her boyfriend 30 seconds earlier during an argument. 6. December 1997: Kara Walton of Claymont, Delaware successfully sued the owner of a night club in a neighboring city when she fell from the bathroom window to the floor and knocked out her two front teeth.  This occurred while Ms. Walton was trying to sneak through the window in the ladies room to avoid paying the $3.50 cover charge. She was awarded $12,000.00 and dental expenses. Origins:   This "and you wonder what's wrong with the world today?" whinge appeared on the Internet in May 2001. All of the entries in the list are fabrications: a search for news stories about each of these cases failed to turn up anything, as did a search for each law case.  The earliest version concluded with a seventh item that has since been snipped away, likely after someone noticed it was the venerable microwaved poodle legend. Its inclusion would have immediately called into question the truthfulness of the other six cases for any number of folks familiar with urban legends. The remaining six were still false, but they weren't as obviously false as the following poodle tale and thus wouldn't have set the alarm bells ringing: microwaved 7. And just so you know that cooler heads do occasionally prevail: Kenmore Inc., the makers of Dorothy Johnson's microwave, were found not liable for the death of Mrs. Johnson's poodle after she gave it a bath and attempted to dry it by putting the poor creature in her microwave for, "just a few minutes, on low,"  The case was quickly dismissed. A version of the list that began circulating in the spring of 2002 has yet another urban legend included as its final item, the venerable cruise control legend: cruise control In November 2000, Mr. Grazinski purchased a brand new 32 foot Winnebago motor home. On his first trip home, having joined the freeway, he set the cruise control at 70 mph and calmly left the drivers seat to go into the back and make himself a cup of coffee. Not surprisingly, the Winnie left the freeway, crashed and overturned. Mr. Grazinski sued Winnebago for not advising him in the handbook that he could not actually do this. He was awarded  $1,750,000 plus a new Winnebago. Some versions bear the following footer, although many omit it: PLEASE ASSIST OUR LAW OFFICES IN A TORT REFORM PROGRAM.  WE ARE ATTEMPTING TO PUT A STOP TO THESE INSANE JURY AWARDS BY SENDING THIS E-MAIL OUT TO THE PUBLIC IN THE HOPES OF SWAYING PUBLIC OPINION.  PLEASE FORWARD IT TO EVERY EMAIL ADDRESS YOU KNOW.Mary R. Hogelmen, Esq.Law Offices of Hogelmen, Hogelmen, and ThomasDayton Ohio Mary R. Hogelmen, Esq.Law Offices of Hogelmen, Hogelmen, and ThomasDayton Ohio There is no law firm of Hogelmen, Hogelmen, and Thomas in Dayton, Ohio, as a call to directory assistance quickly confirmed. This detail was included to give the mailing credibility in the eyes of those who received it: if a law firm had pulled this list together to build grassroots support for its tort reform program, then it went without saying a pack of lawyers had properly researched each item and were guaranteeing the information provided. But of course this detail was as false as everything else in the e-mail. Speaking about implied credibility, we note that the "outrageous lawsuits" list has made it into the newspapers at times, which only works to add to the perception that the information given in it is reliable. In June 2002, the New York Daily News presented it solely as an e-mail it had received, making no statements as to its likeliness to be real or detailing any attempts that publication might have made to verify any of the entries. (Had such attempts been made, the Daily News would have quickly found the article you're now reading, which originally appeared on this site a full ten months prior to the Daily News piece.) Fake or not, a list of outrageous awards bestowed upon those whose actions  nay, misbehaviors  had brought them to grief would fall upon very receptive ears because current feeling is very much against large jury awards for frivolous claims. This e-mail preaches to the choir in that it "confirms" what is already deeply believed. Numerous states have enacted measures to reform their civil law systems in response to the problem of frivolous lawsuits and runaway jury awards. Tort reform usually amounts to placing a cap on punitive damage awards, making the state's joint-and-several liability law more equitable, and limiting judge and court shopping (which means cases are tried in front of whomever they've been assigned to rather than the judge the plaintiff figures will be most sympathetic). Though the cases described in the e-mail are fake, real lawsuits of equal silliness can be found in abundance. An equally impressive list could easily have been compiled by anyone with access to a news database and a few moments to spare. For instance:  In March 1995, a San Diego man unsuccessfully attempted to sue the city and Jack Murphy Stadium for $5.4 million over something that can only be described as a wee problem: Robert Glaser claimed the stadium's unisex bathroom policy at a Billy Joel and Elton John concert caused him embarrassment and emotional distress thanks to the sight of a woman using a urinal in front of him. He subsequently tried "six or seven" other bathrooms in the stadium only to find women in all of them. He asserted he "had to hold it in for four hours" because he was too embarrassed to share the public bathrooms with women.  A San Carlos, California, man sued the Escondido Public Library for $1.5 million. His dog, a 50-pound Labrador mix, was attacked November 2000 by the library's 12-pound feline mascot, L.C., (also known as Library Cat). The case was heard in January 2004, with the jury finding for the defendant. In a further case which was resolved in July 2004, the plaintiff in the previous suit was ordered to pay the city $29,362.50, which amounted to 75% of its legal fees associated with that case.  In 1994, a student at the University of Idaho unsuccessfully sued that institution over his fall from a third-floor dorm window. He'd been mooning other students when the window gave way. It was contended the University failed to provide a safe environment for students or to properly warn them of the dangers inherent to upper-story windows.  In 1993, McDonald's was unsuccessfully sued over a car accident in New Jersey. While driving, a man who had placed a milkshake between his legs, leaned over to reach into his bag of food and squeezed the milkshake container in the process. When the lid popped off and spilled half the drink in his lap, this driver became distracted and ran into another man's car. That man in turn tried to sue McDonald's for causing the accident, saying the restaurant should have cautioned the man who had hit him against eating while driving. Although the cases cited above were all eventually dismissed, they still managed to work their way at least partway through our court system. When we hear such stories, it's hard not to be rabidly in favor of tort reform  these kinds of cases make it appear that the idiots have taken over the asylum and only the rapid institution of some rules is going to bring things back into a semblance of sanity. Yet this solution is not all skittles and beer; many see such changes as potentially denying those in need of legal remedy their day in court and refusing them their right to be heard. The cap on jury awards is also viewed by some as unfair to the seriously injured, who may well require a large sum to afford the cost of living with whatever disability someone else's negligence or recklessness left them with. Capped awards are also scant deterrent to large corporations who could easily afford the judgments against them and therefore have little reason to mend their ways. Big Business is poised to benefit under tort reform in that it will no longer need to fear the courts. It can also be argued that the need for tort reform is overblown. Only rarely do ridiculous lawsuits result in windfalls for the plaintiff; these cases are almost always either thrown out or the judgment goes for the defendant. Some celebrated "outrageous" suits wherein judgment went for the plaintiff prove upon closer examination to be far less "outrageous" than originally presented in the media.  (For example, the "woman scalded by hot coffee" suit, which at first blush looked like the height of frivolity proved to be a perfectly legitimate action taken against a corporation that knew, thanks to a string of similar scaldings it had quietly been paying off, that its coffee was not just hot, but dangerously hot. The Consumer Attorneys of California provides a good description of this case). this case Tort reform thus has both its advocates and its adversaries. On the one hand, we bridle at the thought of the terminally clueless being rewarded for their folly  that strikes us as just plain wrong. We also fear for the continued wellbeing of the small- to mid-sized business which can ill afford to fend off one frivolous lawsuit after another and thus stands in danger of being litigated to death. Also, even when litigants do not prevail, costs associated with their suits rain down onto the average citizen through his taxes (some of which underwrite the judicial system) and through increased prices for goods produced by firms who had to mount legal defenses.  Yet on the other hand, we don't want to see those who have legitimate cause denied their right to sue (or in the case of the seriously injured, their right to sue for an appropriate amount). We also don't want to see corporations run unchecked, free to turn out whatever dangerous product they like because the combination of capped awards and their deep pockets render them bulletproof. It's a complicated issue, one not made any easier to make sense of by lists of fake cases of horrendous miscarriages of justice. One has to wonder why someone is so busy trying to stir up outrage and who or what that outrage would ultimately benefit. Additional information:  George W. Bush's first act upon becoming the Governor of Texas was to reform that state's civil justice system. In January 1995, just after being sworn in, he convened a session of the Legislature to tackle tort reform. Within weeks he signed bills to limit punitive damages to $750,000, cut down on "venue shopping" for favorable judges and juries, and made it easier for judges to impose sanctions on plaintiffs who file frivolous suits.  Sightings:  The "woman in a store trips over a toddler, then sues the store" fiction was incorporated into an episode of the television drama Boston Legal ("Tabloid Nation," original air date 8 April 2008). Last updated:  11 April 2008    Sources:   Associated Press.  "Men's Room Invasion Prompts Suit."   The Fresno Bee.  1 April 1995  (p. F8).     Coile, Zachary.  "Bush's Formula to Win Over Business."   The San Francisco Examiner.  2 October 2000  (p. A1).     Elias, Paul.  "So What's a Little Litigation Between Friends?"   The Recorder.  14 December 1999  (Court Watch; p. 4).     Heller, Jonathan.  "Man Seeks $1.5 Million from City; Says Library Cat Attacked His Dog."   The San Diego Union-Tribune.  5 May 2001  (p. B2).     Littlefield, Dana.  "Suit Over Library Cat's Attack Bites Back at disabled Dog Owner."   The San Diego Union-Tribune.  31 July 2004  (p. NC3).     Perkins, Joseph.  "We All Pay When Others File Frivolous Lawsuits."   The San Diego Union-Tribune.  18 May 2001  (p. B7).     Perry, Tony.  "A One-Man Campaign for More Women's Restrooms."   Los Angeles Times.  18 August 1995  (p. A3).     Riffel, James.  "Jury Rejects Claims of Disabled Man Against City for Cat Attack."   City News Service.  30 January 2004.     Vogt, Andrea.  "Ludicrous Lawsuit Against University of Idaho Rears Its Ugly Head."   Lewiston Morning Tribune.  2 August 1994  (p. A1).     New Jersey Lawyer.  "Moral of a Burger Suit: Don't Eat and Drive."   15 November 1993  (p. 3).     [New York] Daily News.  "Mighty Quinn."   25 June 2002  (Sports, p. 63).
In December 2023, one of the most common examples of the Mandela Effect saw renewed online attention thanks in part to a TikTok video on the topic: that the Fruit of the Loom company logo once contained a cornucopia. The Mandela Effect is generally defined as a "collective misremembering" in which large numbers of people share the same false belief.  video generally defined @dimelifting #mandelaeffect #storytime #fypppp #greenscreen  original sound - Nicole  The TikTok video in question concludes that there has been a massive coverup at the corporate level. The video's creator decries the effect the alleged obfuscation has had on the general public. The cornucopia removal and coverup is "one of the greatest marketing ploys in history," she argued, "but at what cost?" Fervent belief in a Fruit of the Loom cornucopia is not uncommon. A post on Quora captures this viewpoint: post I have a strong opinion about the Fruit of the Loom logo and whether it had a cornucopia or not. I remember seeing a cornucopia in the logo when I was a kid, and I learned what it was from my school. A cornucopia is a horn-shaped basket that is filled with fruits and vegetables, and it symbolizes abundance and prosperity. I think the cornucopia made sense for the Fruit of the Loom brand because it showed that they had a variety of quality products. An image of the purported logo is often shared in defense of this claim: purported logo  However, that is a fabrication, not the actual Fruit of the Loom logo. The perception of a cornucopia goes back decades. For example, a 1994 piece in a local Florida paper about the actor, Samuel Wright, who played Sebastian the Crab in "The Little Mermaid" and who also appeared in Fruit of the Loom commercials, repeated the assertion that the logo contained a cornucopia in print: 1994 piece For 19 years, Wright made anywhere from 120-140 television commercials for Fruit of the Loom underwear. And he didn't even wear Fruit of the Looms. He wore skimpy bikini briefs. "My wife is European," he says from a hotel room in Tampa. "She said (cotton underwear) made me look like an old man." Anyhow, Fruit of the Loom's logo was initially a cornucopia swollen with an apple, green grapes, purple grapes, and their green leaves. Wright was the purple grape cluster. And he had to pretend Fruit of the Looms never found them that were great. While the existence of these commercials is factual, one cannot help but note that nobody played a cornucopia in the actual commercial series referenced in this article: these commercials  The company has, as well, officially weighed in on the claim. On June 26, 2023, the company tweeted an image from a USA Today crossword puzzle that included the clue "Fruit of the ____ (company that does not, in fact, have a cornucopia in its logo)." It noted that the "Mandela Effect is real," but that the cornucopia claims were false: tweeted The Mandela Effect is real, the cornucopia in our logo is not ? pic.twitter.com/qoiuvemsIy pic.twitter.com/qoiuvemsIy  Fruit of the Loom (@FruitOfTheLoom) June 26, 2023 June 26, 2023  The Fruit of the Loom logo has always contained an apple, green grapes, purple grapes, and leaves. Snopes searched archived newspaper advertisements from every decade from the 1910s to the 2020s and could not locate a single one with a cornucopia: Snopes searched newspaper advertisements every decade from the 1910s to the 2020s   (Snopes.com) In rebuttal to these facts, at least two major lines of purported evidence have been proffered. In broad terms, these arguments boil down to the claim that there are photographs that show Fruit of the Loom shirts with a logo that includes a cornucopia, and that legal filings related to its trademark describe that company's logo as including a cornucopia. The December TikTok video focused on the former claim. The legal argument is popular on Reddit.  video on Reddit While Snopes has no definitive explanation for the purported photographic evidence, we find its use as proof for an official cornucopia logo weak. Of the hundreds of emails received by Snopes, only two discrete images showing shirts with a cornucopia logo have been produced. Both images are allegedly taken from shirts found in thrift stores.  Most examples sent to Snopes appear to have their origins in a June 2023 post (above) that went viral in the r/funny subreddit, among other places. The only other example (below) stems from the aforementioned TikTok video: June 2023 post TikTok video  The provenance of these photos is unknown, and as a result their utility as evidence is limited. Two shirts on their own do not disprove the mountain of evidence attesting to the lack of cornucopia in the company's official logo. The legal argument presented to Snopes, also proffered on Reddit, is that, according to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Fruit of the Loom itself described its trademark as containing a cornucopia. on Reddit This misconception stems from the fact that at least one trademark registration document apparently filed by Fruit of the Loom used what is known as design search code 05.09.14 to describe the trademark  indicating an image with "Baskets of fruit; Containers of fruit; [or] Cornucopia (horn of plenty)." Reddit posts posit that this document has some legal bearing in the world of intellectual property law. registration document First, this is not the case. The primary goal of these search codes, according to the USPTO, is to identify the most "significant" visual design elements as an aid for prospective applications to search for similar trademarks. While Snopes has no insight into the legal decisions made by Fruit of the Loom in the 1970s, the 05.09.14 example contained in the USPTO database classification manual does share some visual similarity with the Fruit of the Loom logo at issue: significant  Second, and more to the point, this document is irrelevant. Filed in 1973, the corporate contact was listed as an office in Manhattan. The application itself was rejected by the USPTO. Whatever this document is, it does not represent the active Fruit of the Loom trademark application. The USPTO challenged the cornucopia-containing application in 1980, apparently rejecting it on clerical grounds. The application was officially canceled in 1988.  an office apparently rejecting canceled The active trademark registration, filed in 1981, lists Fruit of the Loom's Kentucky office as its contact and, crucially, does not use database search code 05.09.14. Instead, codes for several other non-cornucopia visual elements are included: active trademark Kentucky office 05.03.08 - More than one leaf, including scattered leaves, bunches of leaves not attached to branches 05.03.25 - Leaf, single; Other leaves 05.09.02 - Grapes 05.09.05 - Apples 05.09.06 - Avocados; Fruits with pits (apricots, peaches, plums, olives and the like) 26.03.02 - Ovals, plain single line; Plain single line ovals Because the document cited in support of the legal argument that Fruit of the Loom's logo once contained a cornucopia is a failed application that was replaced, or superseded, by an application that contained no descriptors of a cornucopia or cornucopia-related images, it also fails as evidence in support of a cornu-cover-up. Because no verified image of a Fruit of the Loom containing a cornucopia exists in print, and because the company has officially stated that its logo has never contained a cornucopia, we rate the claim as  1987 Fruit of the Loom "The Unbustables" TV Commercial. www.youtube.com, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5fH3ebtFtI. Accessed 5 July 2023. "Did One of the Old Fruit of the Loom Logos Include a Cornucopia?" Quora, https://www.quora.com/Did-one-of-the-old-Fruit-of-the-Loom-logos-include-a-cornucopia. Accessed 5 July 2023. "Fruit of the Loom Detergent Logo 1979." Newspapers.Com, 25 Apr. 1979, https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-kokomo-tribune-fruit-of-the-loom-det/127691447/. "Fruit of the Loom Logo, 1926." Newspapers.Com, 3 Aug. 1926, https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-bridgeport-telegram-fruit-of-the-loo/127688561/. "Fruit of the Loom Logo 1940." Newspapers.Com, 25 Apr. 1940, https://www.newspapers.com/article/intelligencer-journal-fruit-of-the-loom/127688834/. "Fruit of the Loom Logo 1951." Newspapers.Com, 23 Apr. 1951, https://www.newspapers.com/article/lancaster-new-era-fruit-of-the-loom-logo/127689672/. "Fruit of the Loom Logo 1966." Newspapers.Com, 5 June 1966, https://www.newspapers.com/article/chicago-tribune-fruit-of-the-loom-logo-1/127690881/. "Fruit of the Loom Logo 1987." Newspapers.Com, 2 Aug. 1987, https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-marion-star-fruit-of-the-loom-logo-1/127691698/. "Fruit of the Loom Logo, 1996." Newspapers.Com, 15 Sept. 1996, https://www.newspapers.com/article/springfield-news-sun-fruit-of-the-loom-l/127692161/. "Fruit of the Loom Logo 2008." Newspapers.Com, 10 Aug. 2008, https://www.newspapers.com/article/green-bay-press-gazette-fruit-of-the-loo/127692306/. "Fruit of the Loom Logo 2011." Newspapers.Com, 16 Jan. 2011, https://www.newspapers.com/article/palladium-item-fruit-of-the-loom-logo-20/127692582/. "Fruit of the Loom Logo 2020." Newspapers.Com, 10 Mar. 2020, https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-park-city-daily-news-fruit-of-the-lo/127692838/. "Fruit of the Loom Logo in 1917." Newspapers.Com, 26 Aug. 1917, https://www.newspapers.com/article/detroit-free-press-fruit-of-the-loom-log/127688395/. "Underwear Character Is Still A-Peeling." Newspapers.Com, 14 Oct. 1994, https://www.newspapers.com/article/florida-today-underwear-character-is-sti/127697411/. 15 U.S. Code  1052 - Trademarks Registrable on Principal Register; Concurrent Registration. LII / Legal Information Institute, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1052. Accessed 3 Jan. 2024. 15 U.S. Code  1068 - Action of Director in Interference, Opposition, and Proceedings for Concurrent Use Registration or for Cancellation. LII / Legal Information Institute, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1068. Accessed 3 Jan. 2024. Design Search Codes. https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/search/design-search-codes. Accessed 3 Jan. 2024. FAQs. Fruit of the Loom, Inc., https://www.fotlinc.com/our-company/faqs/. Accessed 3 Jan. 2024. Trademark Status & Document Retrieval. https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=73006089&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch. Accessed 3 Jan. 2024. ---. https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=73317339&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch. Accessed 3 Jan. 2024. USPTO. FRUIT OF THE LOOM - Fruit Of The Loom, Inc. Trademark Registration. USPTO.Report, https://uspto.report/TM/73006089. Accessed 3 Jan. 2024. Gov. Bob McDonnell has proposed spending an additional $2.2 billion on state employee and teacher pensions during a two-year budget period that will begin July 1.The governor, in presenting his biennial budget plan to the General Assemblys money committees on Dec. 19,saidhis pension proposal, if approved, would be the largest employer contribution to the Virginia Retirement System in history.We wondered whether the total $2.21 billion infusion over two budget years would truly be historic.Since taking office in 2010, McDonnell has made a number of proposals to reform the Virginia Retirement System, which is an estimated $19.9 billion short of the assets needed to pay its projected pension liabilities over the next 85 years. But the governor also added to VRSs woes early in his term by convincing the legislature to divert $620 million in scheduled pension contributions to balance the states general fund, which pays for education, public safety and health programs.Under McDonnells new proposal, Virginia would pay roughly $600 million for state employee pensions during the 2013-14 budget years. Another $1.6 billion would be contributed to teacher retirement funds, with local governments picking up $1 billion of the sum and the state government paying $600 million.Tucker Martin, McDonnells director of communications, told us the governors claim that the $2.21 billion total contributions would be historic was based on VRS data.The VRS figures show the largest employer contribution to date came in the 2007-08 biennial budget when total state and local contributions were $1.72 billion. Thats lower than McDonnells proposal.The retirement system started in 1942, but VRS doesnt have records of employer contributions before 1973.Jeanne Chenault, a VRS spokeswoman, said the number of teachers and state employees before 1973 would have been lower, so its unlikely that contribution amounts would have exceeded 1973 levels.The VRS data shows annual contribution amounts without adjusting for inflation. So we did that work ourselves to see McDonnells claim could survive another test.It did. Even when adjusting for inflation, the 2007-08 contributions were still the high-water mark for employer contributions to the pension system, coming in at just more than $1.8 billion in current dollars. McDonnells proposal eclipses that.Our Ruling:The governor said his proposed $2.21 billion employer contribution for state worker and teacher pensions would be the largest in VRS history.For as far back as the data goes, the governors statement is correct even when adjusting for inflation.We rate the claim True. Asked by a Dallas television reporter whether he agreed with Texas leaders that the federal government should take some governing cues from the Lone Star State, President Barack Obama said he saw a little inconsistency in that position. Keep in mind, Gov. (Rick) Perry helped balance his budget with about $6 billion worth of federal help, which he happily took, and then started blaming the members of Congress who had offered that help, Obama said during an April 18 interview with WFAA reporter Brad Watson at the White House. That so? We started our fact-check with Obamas budget claim. Adam Abrams, a White House spokesman, told us that Obama was referring to stimulus funds when he said Perry plugged the budget with federal aid. The roughly $800 billion federal stimulus package, named the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act by Congress, became law in February 2009 after receiving only three Republican votes, all in the Senate. State governments were the primary recipients of the money, although funds have also gone directly to entities such as schools, hospitals and utilities. The law specified that governors had 45 days after its passage to certify that their state would request and use the offered funds. On Feb. 18, 2009, Perry sent Obama the requisite letter of certification, assuring the president that the state would accept the funds and use them in the best interest of Texas taxpayers. According to a February 2009 PBSNews Houronline post, some stimulus money was meant to help states avoid slashing funding for education and other programs that lawmakers could trim to offset shortfalls. Abrams, asked for backup for the presidents statement, pointed us to the National Conference of State Legislatures, which in turn sent us its July 2009 report on state budgets. According to the report, state budget-writing Texas lawmakers in 2009 were short $6.6 billion in revenue for 2010-11 and relied heavily on stimulus funds for a solution. We did our own budget research, finding that lawmakers agreed to spend $80.6 billion in state general revenue on basic expenses over the two-year period, according to a report by the Legislative Budget Board, which advises lawmakers on budgetary matters. However, the stimulus aid let legislators put an additional $6.4 billion toward programs, primarily Medicaid and education, historically financed with general revenue, according to a July 2009 House Research Organization report. Another $5.7 billion in stimulus money went to programs such as highway and bridge construction, child care development programs and weatherization assistance. Counting all funding sources, including the $12.1 billion in stimulus aid, the 2010-11 state budget totaled $182 billion. So, Obamas dollar figure holds up. What about his claim that after accepting the stimulus money, Perry started blaming members of Congress who voted for the bill  almost all of them Democrats? We searched news archives and websites for such jabs.For the record, Perry has long aired anti-Washington, anti-spending rhetoric. A December 2007Austin American-Statesmanstory reported that Perry, while campaigning in Iowa for presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani, said President George W. Bush is not and he never was a fiscal conservative. Back to the stimulus: On Feb. 18, 2009, the same day Perry accepted the federal funds, the governor slammed the legislation as being full of pork and special interest handouts. On his campaignwebsite, Perry wrote: The Democrats think this bill will change our country's financial fortunes, but you and I know better. This administration is saddling future generations with an increasingly unbearable debt. He then urged readers to sign an online petition telling Washington that they are fed up with bailouts. In his letter to Obama accepting the aid, Perry said: As you know, I have been vocal in my opposition to this legislation because I believe there are better ways to reinvigorate our economy and believe (the stimulus plan) will burden future generations with unprecedented levels of debt. Perry also wrote that he opposed using these funds to expand existing government programs because the state would be burdened with ongoing expenditures long after the funding has dried up. (Elsewhere, Perry was quoted as saying that he welcomed federal dollars that could be used for one-time expenses.) During a Feb. 26, 2009, interview with conservative radio host Mike Gallagher, Perry criticized those members of Congress who had supported both the stimulus plan and the earlier $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, which helped shore up struggling banks during the financial crisis. He said: Voting for the TARP in my opinion is even worse than voting for the stimulus; and theyre both very bad. ... At least some of the stimulus money may actually get into the hands of people where it might accidentally do some good. Theres more. In an April 7, 2009, video posted on his campaignwebsite, Perry urged fellow patriots to attend tea party rallies planned for April 15 to let Washington know what you think about the bailouts, all this stimulus, all this runaway spending thats going on. And during speeches at tea party rallies that day, Perry said the attendees were sending Washington a message that we will not stand for our pockets being picked, our childrens future being mortgaged, our rights being taken away. Perrys criticism of Washingtons policies was not limited to Democrats. Running against U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison in the last Republican gubernatorial primary, Perry frequently attacked her by calling out Washington. According to a Sept. 25, 2009,Statesmanarticle, Perry wrote in a fundraising letter, If Washington Republicans hadn't spent like Democrats for 12 years, they might have maintained enough votes to actually kill Obamacare. More recently, during a January 2010 speech in favor of a proposal to require Congress to balance the federal budget, Perry said that leaders in Washington  pour out your tax dollars on every challenge, blissfully ignoring the consequences of their largesse while they consign our children, our grandchildren to a life of unprecedented, unmanageable debt. We asked the White House for examples of Perry blaming the members of Congress who supported the stimulus plan. Abrams didnt offer any but told us that the president was pointing out the well-documented habit of those who criticize Recovery Act assistance while using those funds to balance a state's budget. Summing up: Obama said Perry happily took federal stimulus funds that helped balance the states 2010-11 state budget. Perry hardly sounded happy about it, but Obama is correct that he accepted stimulus money that was used to help balance the budget. As to whether Perry then started blaming members of Congress who had supported the stimulus legislation  well, not in so many words. And as we noted, Perrys criticism of the federal government had started long before. But Perry criticized the plan specifically and the policies of Washington in general, using rhetoric that painted Congress and the White House with the same big-spending brush. We rate the statement Mostly True. FACT CHECK:  Did President Obama order that "behavioral experiments" be carried out on the American people?  Claim:   President Obama ordered "behavioral experiments" be carried out on the American people.   MOSTLY  WHAT'S :   President Obama issued an Executive Order on 15 September 2015 encouraging federal agencies to more frequently use behavioral research insights in the creation and adoption of policy.     WHAT'S :  President Obama ordered that "behavioral experiments" be carried out on American citizens; President Obama specifically directed agencies to implement any form of behavioral insight usage; the word "experiment" appeared anywhere in the Executive Order. Example:    [Collected via Twitter, September 2015] President Barry ORDERS BEHAVIORAL EXPERIMENTS ON AMERICAN PUBLIC!! https://t.co/MNHOSCvpAB #COSProject pic.twitter.com/0aQN33AqQ3 https://t.co/MNHOSCvpAB #COSProject pic.twitter.com/0aQN33AqQ3  TheFightingIrishDame (@TheIrishDame) September 16, 2015 September 16, 2015   Shock Executive Order: Obama Authorizes Behavioral Experiments On U.S. Citizens: To A ... - https://t.co/pl2RzxZr4q pic.twitter.com/ll7cWaFtqe https://t.co/pl2RzxZr4q pic.twitter.com/ll7cWaFtqe  State of Globe (@StateofGlobe) September 17, 2015 September 17, 2015   Obama Executive Order Instructs Federal Agencies to Conduct Mass Behavioral Experiments on U.S. Citizens: https://t.co/mCynSnLP0e https://t.co/mCynSnLP0e  Bill Periman (@BillPeriman) September 17, 2015 September 17, 2015   Origins:   On 15 September 2015 the web site Daily Caller published an article titled "President Obama Orders Behavioral Experiments on American Public" which claimed that the chief executive had "authorized federal agencies to conduct behavioral experiments on U.S. citizens": President Obama announced a new executive order which authorizes federal agencies to conduct behavioral experiments on U.S. citizens in order to advance government initiatives. The article was aggregated by other news outlets such as DC Clothesline, which similarly claimed the President's executive order had instructed "Federal Agencies to Conduct Mass Behavioral Experiments on U.S. Citizens": Does anyone actually believe "behavioral experiments" on the US citizenry are about "designing government policies to better serve the American people?" Think Pavlov's dog. And, can someone point to the Constitution and show where government has the authority to "experiment" on the citizenry in any shape, form or fashion? It's not there. Government possesses no authority whatsoever to conduct any type of experimentation, behavioral or otherwise, on the citizens of this nation. Both Daily Caller and DC Clothesline used the phrase "behavioral experiments" (conjuring up frightening scenarios of federal gaslighting), and the second article placed the phrase in quotes, suggesting specifically that the Obama administration had "ordered" sinister-sounding "behavioral experiments" be inflicted upon Americans. The 15 September 2015 Executive Order referenced by the articles is available on the White House's web site for open review. Tellingly, the word "experiments" does not appear anywhere within it; only words such as "encourage[d]," "identify," "review," and "improve." The executive order about "Using Behavioral Science Insights to Better Serve the American People" actually decreed: web site decreed To more fully realize the benefits of behavioral insights and deliver better results at a lower cost for the American people, the Federal Government should design its policies and programs to reflect our best understanding of how people engage with, participate in, use, and respond to those policies and programs. By improving the effectiveness and efficiency of Government, behavioral science insights can support a range of national priorities, including helping workers to find better jobs; enabling Americans to lead longer, healthier lives; improving access to educational opportunities and support for success in school; and accelerating the transition to a low-carbon economy. Alongside the Executive Order, the White House issued a document titled "Fact Sheet: President Obama Signs Executive Order; White House Announces New Steps to Improve Federal Programs by Leveraging Research Insights." Aiming to provide details not included on the Executive Order about how "behavioral insights" could apply to the creation and implementation of policy, that document explained: document Behavioral science insights  research insights about how people make decisions  not only identify aspects of programs that can act as barriers to engagement, but also provide policymakers with insight into how those barriers can be removed through commonsense steps, such as simplifying communications and making choices more clear. That same study on financial aid found that streamlining the process of applying  by providing families with assistance and enabling families to automatically fill parts of the application using information from their tax return  increased the rates of both aid applications and college enrollment. When these insights are used to improve government, the returns can be significant. For instance, the Federal Government applied behavioral science insights to simplify the process of applying for Federal student aid and has made college more accessible to millions of American families. Similarly, the Pension Protection Act of 2006, which codified the practice of automatically enrolling workers into retirement savings plans, is based on behavioral economics research showing that switching from an opt-in to an opt-out enrollment system dramatically increases participation rates. Since the implementation of this policy, automatic enrollment and automatic escalation have led to billions of dollars in additional savings by Americans. Another germane fact sheet tidbit came in the form of detail pertaining to a new committee formed to facilitate the order's initiatives: The Executive Order also formally establishes the Social and Behavioral Sciences Team (SBST), a group of experts in applied behavioral science that translates findings and methods from the social and behavioral sciences into improvements in Federal policies and programs for the benefit of the American people. The passage excerpted above indicated that behavioral insights data targeted by the initiative stemmed not from government-led "behavioral experiments," but rather "findings and methods from the social and behavioral sciences."  Another passage supported inferences that non-governmental research groups would be tasked with submitting the bulk of relevant findings to the SBST for consideration in the drafting of future policy: The Behavioral Science & Policy Association (BSPA) is launching a Behavioral Science and Policy Series to identify promising avenues for applying behavioral science to public policy at the Federal level in order to improve Americans' lives. Through this series, by September 2016, working groups will deliver white papers that propose particular applications of behavioral science that can be applied, tested, and implemented at the Federal level in the near term. A less harrowing interpretation of the executive order than that fostered by conservative news sites was offered by the Houston Chronicle in a 17 September 2015 article: article Dr. Andrew Harper, a professor of behavioral science at the University of Texas Health Medical School, said behavioral science is an old discipline, used to maximize communication effectiveness, that is only now being applied to government-authored materials. "For example in healthcare there are simple things we want people to do  eat a balanced diet, sleep well," he said. "When just saying 'do it' doesn't work, we look to behavioral science to inform us on strategies that might work better." According to the executive order, research will be used to inform even the basic layout of federal agencies websites and other outreach information. The newly-founded team will consider "how the content, format, timing and medium by which information is conveyed affects comprehension and action by individuals." In other words, researchers will conduct clinical studies to determine how agencies could more effectively present information in a way that will move people to action. The Executive Order didn't come to pass without some objections, however. The University of Oxford's Practical Ethics in the News Blog featured an editorial that questioned how scientifically rigorous the selection and application of such data might be, implying the initiative's mission was too ambiguous. Author Joshua Shepherd conceded that the proposal was overall "a good thing," but said "the order raises a number of ethical and practical issues": editorial Given recent evidence that many results from experimental and social psychology fail to replicate, there might be reason to worry here. The executive order does not define what counts as an 'insight' from behavioral science. Is it the result of one study? A couple? Deployment of an insight that is nothing more than an experimental artifact could be damaging, or wasteful. Suppose a genuine insight exists. Even so, implementing it is not straightforward. Other experts didn't think that the potential flaws outweighed the benefits. University of Michigan professor Andrew Hoffman outlined the potential practical effects of such initiatives on policy in a Scientific American article, positing that their application to the drafting of policy was "long overdue": article [Hoffman] says that people might react rebelliously to a gas tax imposed by the government. A rise in its cost spurred by market forces, on the other hand, might prompt them to drive less. In that way, federal policies should consider the complicated ways that people filter, interpret and process messages. You can't expect to put a price on something  whether that's gas, plastic bags or emissions  and get an expected result, he said. These are things that sociology, psychology, political science have been focusing on for decades, Hoffman said. So to bring in the notion that humans are not perfectly rational, utility-maximizing beings in the formation of policy is long overdue. It is true that President Obama issued an Executive Order on 15 September 2015 encouraging and facilitating the application of behavioral research insights, with a stated goal of creating more efficient policy and stronger compliance. Moreover, some credible questions were raised about how rigorous standards for inclusion of such data might be. But the order neither referenced nor described "behavioral experimentation" upon the American people, nor did it in any way suggest that the order's details involved using anything other than existing, ongoing research carried out by social and behavioral science experts. Last updated:     17 September 2015 Originally published:   17 September 2015 Claim:  North Korean official Jang Sung-taek was executed by being thrown into a cage with 120 starved dogs.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, January 2014] Did North Korean dictator Kim Jung Un kill his Uncle by feeding him and his assistants to starving dogs?   Origins:  On 13 December 2013, North Korean state media announced that Jang Sung-taek, the uncle of North Korean supreme leader Kim Jong-un, had been tried by a special military tribunal of the Ministry of State Security and executed.   Jang, who was vice-chairman of North Korea's  National Defence Commission (a very high political position) and considered to be North Korea's second most powerful man, had been accused of "anti-party, counter-revolutionary factional acts," including affairs with multiple women, harboring "politically-motivated ambition," obstructing "the party's guidance over judicial, prosecution and people's security bodies" and hampering "the nation's economic affairs."  Jang Sung-taek's execution was perceived in the western press as evidence that Kim Jong-un was engaging in a ruthless purge of potential political rivals that provided "another example of the extreme brutality of the North Korean regime." The South Korean press and similar news outlets initially reported that Jang had (presumably) been executed by a machine gun firing squad, as two of his confidants had been the previous week: reported Jang Song-thaek, who served as a vice chairman of the powerful National Defense Commission, was executed shortly after a military trial found him guilty of "the anti-party, counter-revolutionary factional" charges, according to the North's official media Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) in an English dispatch. "The accused is a traitor to the nation for all ages who perpetrated anti-party, counter-revolutionary factional acts in a bid to overthrow the leadership of our party and state and the socialist system," the viciously-worded report said. Jang "would be sentenced to death," as the special military tribunal confirmed that his subversion attempt "is a crime punishable by Article 60 of the DPRK Criminal Code," it said, citing its official name of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. The decision of capital punishment "was immediately executed," the report said, condemning him as "a wicked political careerist, trickster and traitor for all ages in the name of the revolution and the people." Seoul's ruling Saenuri Party lawmaker Seo Sang-kee, head of the legislature's Intelligence Committee, said the North is presumed to have used a machine gun in executing Jang, just as it did when removing his two close confidants last week. However, the Hong Kong newspaper Wen Wei Po reported (in an account picked up two weeks later by Singapore's Straits Times and then spread by western news outlets) that Jang had been executed via a process known as quan jue (i.e., execution by dogs) in which he and five of his aides were stripped naked and thrown into a cage with 120 dogs that had been starved for three days. The famished dogs then proceeded to tear apart and then devour Jang and his aides in a hour-long process that was personally supervised by Kim Jong-un and witnessed by 300 senior officials: Beijing's displeasure is expressed through the publication of a detailed account of Jang's brutal execution in Wen Wei Po, its official mouthpiece, in Hong Kong, on Dec 12. Unlike previous executions of political prisoners which were carried out by firing squads with machine guns, Jang was stripped naked and thrown into a cage, along with his five closest aides. Then 120 hounds, starved for three days, were allowed to prey on them until they were completely eaten up. This is called "quan jue", or execution by dogs. The report said the entire process lasted for an hour, with Mr Kim Jong Un, the supreme leader in North Korea, supervising it along with 300 senior officials. The horrifying report vividly depicted the brutality of the young North Korean leader. However, this item stemmed from a single source (Wen Wei Po) which has a poor reputation for reliability (it ranked 19th out of 21 print media sources for reliability in a survey of Hong Kong residents), and which itself cited no source for its reporting.  As it turned out, the tale was nothing more than a bit of fiction that stemmed from a social media post by a satirist in China: reliability As blogger Trevor Powell pointed out, the original report lifted the story nearly word-for-word from an 11 December social media post by Pyongyang Choi Seongho, a China-based satirist with millions of followers. The background of the personality's page on Tencent Weibo, China's second most-popular microblog, shows a cartoon Kim Jong-un standing on a balcony flanked by military aides, his arms raised and his middle fingers extended. Trevor Powell Choi's post includes all of the grisly details that made their way into the American press: Jang and five of his aides were stripped naked, thrown into a giant cage, and "entirely devoured" by 120 Manchurian hunting dogs that had been starved for three days. Kim conducted the hour-long spectacle himself before an audience of 300 North Korean officials, it added.  Last updated:  6 January 2014    Fisher, Max.  "No, Kim Jong Un Probably Didn't Feed His Uncle to 120 Hungry Dogs."   The Washington Post.  3 January 2014.     O'Carroll, Chad.  "Rumor Jang Song Thaek Was Killed by Hungry Dogs Re-Emerges."   NKNews.org.  3 January 2014.    Shears, Richard.  "Stripped Naked, Thrown Into a Cage and Torn Apart by 120 Starving Dogs."   The Daily Mail.  3 January 2014.    Zurcher, Anthony.  "Did Kim Jong Un Feed His Uncle to Dogs?"   BBC News.  3 January 2014.    South China Morning Post.  "Post Tops Survey on Newspaper Credibility."   2 January 2014. California Senator and Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris has sharply criticized President Trump for his plans to divert military funds to pay for a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. Trump in February declared a national emergency on the border to access billions of dollars that Congress refused to give him to build the wall. One of Harris recent attacks caught our attention: She claimed the Trump administration was raiding money from the military pensions of service members to pay for the barrier. Members of our military have already given so much. Raiding money from their pensions to fund the Presidents wasteful vanity project is outrageous. Our servicemembers deserve better, Harris said on March 8 onTwitterandFacebook. Is the Trump administration really planning to raid military pensions? FactCheck.org, along with some social media users who commented on Harris posts, described her claim as misleading or wrong. We decided to fact-check her provocative statement ourselves. Background on Trumps national emergency declaration Democratic leaders have called Trumps emergency declaration a power grab, and some Republicans also said it sets a dangerous precedent. The move allows the president to transfer $3.6 billion from military construction projects to the wall, according to the White House. It also gives him the ability to tap $2.5 billion from drug interdiction programs and $600 million from a Treasury Department asset forfeiture fund. Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said in a joint statement in February: The Congress will defend our constitutional authorities in the Congress, in the Courts, and in the public, using every remedy available. The House and Senate voted this month to block the declaration. Trump vetoed the joint resolution shortly after. A bid to override the veto failed this week in the House. Sixteen states, including California, have filed a federal lawsuit challenging Trumps authority to divert funds for the border wall. Examining Harris claim To support her statement, Harris linked in her social media posts to a March 7 Associated Pressarticle. Reading just the headline -- Pentagon may tap military pay, pensions for border wall -- Harris claim seems mostly accurate. But the first paragraph describes the money as leftover funds, casts a different light. The Pentagon is planning to tap $1 billion in leftover funds from military pay and pension accounts to help President Donald Trump pay for his long-sought border wall, a top Senate Democrat said Thursday. The money is available because the Army missed a recruitment goal by 6,500 enlistees. Additionally, fewer soldiers opted to take financial incentives for voluntary early retirement, according to the article. The Pentagon plans to move the extra money to its drug interdiction account, freeing it up to spend on border barriers, the AP reported. Experts say claim misses the mark To further assess Harris claim of raiding pensions, we spoke with three experts on federal defense budgets. Each said the senators statement was inaccurate. Its off-base, said Todd Harrison, senior fellow at theCenter for Strategic and International Studies, a bipartisan, nonprofit policy research organization. He said the money is leftover in certain Army personnel accounts. Its a separate issue worth debating whether that money should be used for the border wall or should be used for other purposes within the military. But the fact that theyre moving money out of these accounts is not an indication that anyone is cutting military pay or cutting benefits or pension payments. Thats not the case. No military service members pension would be reduced, he said. Mark Cancian, who worked for the White House Office of Management and Budget on defense budget strategy during the Obama administration, agreed that Harris statement is wrong. The answer is, No. They are not raiding military pensions, Cancian said. Im sure the Army had some places they would have preferred to send that money. But they are not taking any money from pensions. Cancian is now a senior advisor with the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Travis Sharp directs the budget program at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, which provides independent defense budget analysis. He also said Harris statement is flawed. This is another example of there being a lot of confusion about what it means to cut something in the budget, Sharp said. Transferring money after an agency overestimated how much something would cost is not the same as a cut, he said. The Department of Defense has to budget in advance for things that are unpredictable, Sharp said. The money thats leftover is what the Trump administration is trying to reallocate. Does that constitute a cut? In my opinion, no. Thats not a cut. When the Pentagon has funds remaining in one account, it can reprogram the money to others, such as a health care or fuel accounts that have a budget shortfall, Cancian said. If that doesnt happen, Congress will rescind that money and use it for other purposes, Harrison, of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said. The Department of Defense did not respond to a request for comment. A spokesperson for the Harris campaign provided a written statement: The AP reported that money is being transferred from a fund dedicated to pensions of armed service members. The President is trying to circumvent Congress who refused to give him funding for this wall by diverting resources from other military funds. The spokesperson would not say whether the senator stood by the original claim. Our rating Sen. Kamala Harris claimed the Trump administration was raiding money from the military pensions of service members to pay for the wall. In reality, the Pentagon plans to move leftover pay and retirement funds that are available because fewer soldiers opted for an early retirement program and because the Army missed a recruitment goal by 6,500 enlistees. No service members would lose pay or retirement benefits as a result of the move, according to experts on federal defense budgets. The headline in the article Harris relied on did not make this clear. But its important for anyone, especially a public official, to read beyond a headline before making such a claim. The debate over whether the Trump administration should tap this money is a separate issue. Harris claim was off-the-mark. We rate it False. FALSEThe statement is not accurate. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. In October 2022, Facebook users copied and pasted posts that claimed, "Facebook will start charging this summer." The copy-and-paste posts, which we refer to as copypasta, claimed that the news was "official" and that the posts had been "signed" by the users, a word that was sometimes misspelled as "signal." The posts claimed the news had even been broadcast "on TV." However, this was nothing more than a repeated iteration of a long-running Facebook hoax. copypasta To be clear, Meta has never announced any plans to charge Facebook users money in order for them to be able to use the platform. We found no shortage of these posts being copied and pasted in mid-October. A search for "Facebook will start charging this summer" returned a seemingly endless number of results. a seemingly endless number of results The copy-and-paste post usually read something like this, with the time changed in some posts depending upon when the user shared the text:  It's official Signed at 10:33. It's even passed on TV. Facebook will start charging this summer. If you copy this to your wall your icon will turn blue and your Facebook will be free for you. Please pass this message, if not your icon will be deleted. P.S. this is serious, the icon will turn blue (Copy and paste to your wall) Mine really turned blue. After the "Facebook will start charging this summer" text, some of the posts that we found then continued by including words from previous iterations of this same hoax: continued Don't forget tomorrow starts the new Facebook (akanew name, META) rule where they can use your photos. Don't forget the Deadline is today!!! 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. The information: The violation of privacy can be punished by law NOTE: Facebook 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.Their new algorithm chooses the same few people - about 25 - who will read your posts.Therefore:Hold your finger down anywhere in this post and "copy" will pop up. Click "copy". Then go to your page, start a new post and put your finger anywhere in the blank field. "Paste" will pop up and click pasteThis will bypass the system. We previously debunked this rumor in 2009, then published another story about it in 2020. The version of the hoax that uses the words "this summer" had apparently been going around since at least 2011. debunked this rumor in 2009 another story since at least 2011 Despite being well over a decade old, Facebook users often share various posts that ask others to copy and paste the text, as if doing so would establish precautionary measures against a future development. ask others to copy and paste the text However, as Jerry once told Kramer on the "Seinfeld" TV series, "I don't know if what you have here constitutes a legally binding document." told Huberman, Bond. "Is Facebook Charging a User Fee?" Snopes.com, 22 May 2020, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/is-facebook-charging-a-user-fee/. Huberman, Bond, and David Emery. "Snopestionary: What Is Copypasta?" Snopes.com, 19 Sept. 2021, https://www.snopes.com/articles/369246/what-is-copypasta/. Mikkelson, David. "Is Facebook Implementing User Fees?" Snopes.com, 31 Dec. 2009, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/facebook-implementing-user-fees/. ---. "Will Posting This Notice Stop Facebook from Making Your Posts Public?" Snopes.com, 4 June 2012, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/facebook-posts-made-public/. Tim. "Its Official...Signal at 12:20 It Even Passed on Tv. Facebook Will Be Charging This Summer - Viral Hoax!"Facecrooks, 3 July 2011, https://facecrooks.com/Internet-Safety-Privacy/Its-official-signal-at-1220-it-even-passed-on-tv-Facebook-will-be-charging-this-summer-Viral-Hoax.html. In June 2019, a variety of news outlets published reports detailing the horrid conditions at immigrant detention centers along the United States' southern border. The Associated Press, for instance, quoted a lawyer named Warren Binford, who visited a facility in Texas and spoke to some of the immigrant children detained within, saying that the kids were living in "inhumane conditions." ABC News obtained a medical declaration that likened these detention centers to torture facilities. Associated Press ABC News As outrage from these reports grew online, actress Nancy Lee Grahn posted a set of photographs that supposedly documented these conditions and accused the Trump administration of forcing children to "sleep on cement floor with an aluminum blanket & lights on all night":  Nancy Lee Grahn   While the text of Grahn's tweet accurately reflects recent news reports, the photographs she used to illustrate her point were not taken during U.S. President Donald Trump's administration.  These photographs are actually still images from a surveillance camera at a Border Patrol holding facility in Tucson, Ariz., in August 2015. The images were released as part of a lawsuit brought by the American Immigration Council and the American Civil Liberties Union against U.S. Customs and Border Protection concerning the conditions at the agency's temporary holding facilities. lawsuit Here's an excerpt from an NPR report: NPR The holding cells were designed to be used for temporary holding  a period of hours. The American Immigration Council analyzed Border Patrol data and concluded that from September 2014 to August 2015, two-thirds of immigrants detained in Border Patrol facilities in the Southwest were held for more than 24 hours, and tens of thousands of people were held for more than three days. Photos of the cells show people crowded together in concrete cells. Several images show prisoners sitting or sleeping on bare floors with no mats available to them  even when there are unused mats in empty cells. While these photographs were taken during the Obama administration, the conditions described in Grahn's tweet still apply to the detention facilities operating under Trump. Physician Dolly Lucio Sevier was granted access to a detention center after a flu outbreak sent five infants to the neonatal intensive care unit. In a medical declaration obtained by ABC News, Sevier compared the conditions to a "torture facility" and wrote that minors were dealing with "extreme cold temperatures, lights on 24 hours a day, no adequate access to medical care, basic sanitation, water, or adequate food." ABC News Binford, a law professor, told NPR: "They are worse than actual prison conditions. It is inhumane. It's nothing that I ever imagined seeing in the United States of America." NPR The second part of Grahn's tweet mentions "Sarah Fabian" and claims that companies are making $750 day to detain immigrant children. Fabian is a Department of Justice lawyer who attempted to defend the conditions at detention centers during a June 2019 Court of Appeals hearing. According to the Washington Post:  defend The government went to federal court this week to argue that it shouldnt be required to give detained migrant children toothbrushes, soap, towels, showers or even half a nights sleep inside Border Patrol detention facilities. The position bewildered a panel of three judges in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit on Tuesday, who questioned whether government lawyers sincerely believed they could describe the temporary detention facilities as safe and sanitary if children werent provided adequate toiletries and sleeping conditions. One circuit judge said it struck him as inconceivable." [...] The government was in court to appeal a 2017 ruling finding that child migrants and their parents were detained in dirty, crowded, bitingly cold conditions inside U.S. Customs and Border Protection facilities along the southern border. Migrants are first taken to those facilities after they are apprehended at the border. [...] U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee had found that migrants in Rio Grande Valley facilities were hungry, with some eating only sandwiches of two pieces of dry bread and one slice of ham. They were thirsty, with up to 20 migrants sharing the same cup to drink from the water cooler. They were embarrassed to use a toilet in front of 50 other people and they couldnt take a shower or brush their teeth or even wash their hands with soap and dry them with a towel, the judge found. At night, they couldnt sleep. The lights were left on, as they shivered beneath an aluminum blanket on the concrete floor, the judge found. Gee ruled in June 2017 that these Obama-era conditions violated a 1997 settlement agreement requiring that immigrant children in the governments custody be housed in safe and sanitary conditions, and that the government maintain concern for the particular vulnerability of minors. But the Trump administration protested. The 1997 consent decree, known as the Flores Settlement Agreement, didnt say anything about providing a toothbrush, towels, dry clothing, soap, or even sleep, the administration has argued. Grahn's claim that companies make $750 "a kid a day to torture them" relates to the fact that some immigration detention centers are owned and operated by private for-profit companies.  Reuters reported in February 2019 that while it costs about $250 per day to hold a child at a permanent detention center, the cost can triple at temporary, privately owned, for-profit facilities such as the "Homestead Temporary Shelter for Unaccompanied Children":  Reuters As the government seeks to rapidly expand the sites capacity, it has waived a federal requirement at Homestead meant to ensure children receive sufficient health care. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which cares for the children, previously required Homestead to maintain a clinician-to-child ratio of 1 to 12 to provide mental health services, according to a November 2018 report. But that requirement has been relaxed to 1 to 20, a Homestead program director said on Wednesday. The facility sits on federal property, and unlike established childrens shelters, such as smaller group or foster homes that hold migrant children across the country, is not governed by state child welfare regulations designed to protect youngsters from harm. [...] About 35 miles south of Miami, the facility is run by Comprehensive Health Services, Inc., a private, for-profit company with a growing line of business in housing immigrant children. In a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission last year, the firms parent company, Caliburn International Corp., noted President Donald Trumps immigration policies were driving significant growth. It costs approximately $250 per day to house a migrant child at a standard, permanent shelter, said Mark Weber, an HHS spokesman. But at an influx facility like Homestead, the cost is triple that - around $750 per day. It is covered by American taxpayers. To sum up: Viral photographs supposedly documenting the conditions at immigration detention facilities under the Trump administration were actually taken in 2015 during Obama's tenure. The poor conditions at these Obama-era centers have continued or worsened under Trump.  Flynn, Meagan.  "Detained Migrant Children Got No Toothbrush, No Soap, No Sleep. Its No Problem, Government Argues."
  Washington Post.  21 June 2019. Torbati, Yeganeh; Cooke, Kristina.  "First Stop for Migrant Kids: For-Profit Detention Center."
  Reuters.  14 February 2019. Domonoske, Camila.  "Surveillance Stills From Border Patrol Facilities Show Crowded, Trash-Filled Cells."
  NPR.  19 August 2016. Gonzales, Richard.  "Obama Immigrant Detention Policies Under Fire."
  NPR.  12 June 2015. Marhsall, Serena; Zak, Lana; Metz, Jennifer.  "Doctor Compares Conditions for Unaccompanied Children at Immigrant Holding Centers to 'Torture Facilities.'"
  ABC News.  23 June 2019. PBS News Hour.  "A Firsthand Report of 'Inhumane Conditions' at a Migrant Childrens Detention Facility."
  21 June 2019. PBS News Hour.  "A Firsthand Report of 'Inhumane Conditions' at a Migrant Childrens Detention Facility."
  21 June 2019. Fans of former president Barack Obama -- or at least critics who like seeing current President Donald Trump get roasted online -- might have gotten their hopes up at what appeared to be a Twitter jab aimed at Trump by his predecessor. But the truth is, the tweet was manufactured. On 1 August 2018, an image began circulating online designed to look like it issued from Obama's Twitter account, with wording that read, "What type of ID do we need to buy groceries I'm at the store and all I have on me is my birth certificate":   Actually, Barack Obama only posted two tweets that day  one of them listed the Democratic Party candidates he was endorsing in the 2018 midterm elections, and the other promoted those candidates: listed other I'm confident that, together, they'll strengthen this country we love by restoring opportunity, repairing our alliances and standing in the world, and upholding our fundamental commitment to justice, fairness, responsibility, and the rule of law. But first, they need our votes. The fake tweet contained two barbs aimed at the current president. It made light of Trump's already widely-derided argument for voter identification cards offered during a 31 July 2018 speech, when the President said, "If you go out and you want to buy groceries, you need a picture on a card, you need ID. You go out, you want to buy anything, you need ID, you need your picture." widely-derided  In reality, shoppers only need to produce identification when purchasing age-restricted items such as cigarettes or alcohol, or picking up prescriptions from grocery stores that include pharmacies. White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said a day later that Trump was referring to alcohol purchases when he made the remark. said The "birth certificate" reference in the fake Obama tweet was also a callback to Trump's longtime promotion of the "birther" conspiracy theory, which claimed that Obama was not born in the U.S. and consequently ineligible to be president.  In 2011, Trump claimed credit for the fact that Obama released his long-form birth certificate. But unidentified advisers reportedly said in 2017 that even after being elected president, Trump "used closed-door conversations to question the authenticity" of his predecessor's birth certificate. claimed released reportedly Snider, Mike.  "ID for Groceries? Trump Trolled on Twitter for His Shopping Comment at Florida Rally."
  USA Today.  2 August 2018. Levy, Pema.  "Sanders Defends Trump on Needing an ID to Buy Groceries."
  Mother Jones.  1 August 2018. Scherer, Michael.  "Birtherism Is Dead, But the Birther Industry Continues."
nbsp;  TIME.  27 April 2011. Haberman, Maggie and Jonathan Martin.  "Trump Once Said the 'Access Hollywood' Tape Was Real. Now He's Not Sure."
  The New York Times.  28 November 2017. As a series of hurricanes made landfall in August and September 2017, those living in the affected areas have been searching for a communication tool that would enable them to send messages in the event of a service outage. An app called "FireChat" is one of the most widely suggested tools, due to its purported ability to send messages without an internet connection:   web site When no Internet connection or cellular networks are available, FireChat uses the radios inside our phones to connect them directly with one another. In that case (which is also called "offline" or off-the-grid), messages will travel up to 70 meters (210 feet) from one phone to the next. If there are more than two devices, they will form a network and messages will bounce from one device to the next, thus extending the range of the network. The more people use FireChat, the better the network gets for everybody. This is why FireChat works really well for very large groups of people. In other words, FireChat wouldn't be able to send a text message from Miami, Florida to Seattle, Washington (a distance of more than 3,000 miles) unless an unbroken chain of tens of thousands of FireChat users spanned that distance. However, it can be used to send messages within a community of FireChat users without the Internet: used What's unique about FireChat is that it also works when there is no Internet connection or cellular phone coverage. It even works on a plane. When your community gets together, it creates your own free communication network and doesnt rely on traditional networks. You don't have to do anything special: just keep FireChat on your smartphone and keep Bluetooth and WiFi on (yes, even if there is no Internet access). This is game-changing since you can create local communication networks at zero cost and also stay connected during sports games, rallies, music festivals, and in emergency situations.  The MIT Technology Review explained more about how the app works in an article that was published shortly after FireChat's initial release in 2014: explained FireChat makes use of a feature Apple introduced in the latest version of its iOS mobile software, iOS7, called multipeer connectivity. This feature allows phones to connect to one another directly using Bluetooth or Wi-Fi as an alternative to the Internet. If youre using FireChat, its nearby chat room lets you exchange messages with other users within 100 feet without sending data via your cellular provider. Micha Benoliel, CEO and cofounder of startup Open Garden, which made FireChat, says the app shows how smartphones can be set free from cellular networks. He hopes to enable many more Internet-optional apps with the upcoming release of software tools that will help developers build FireChat-style apps for iPhone, or for Android, Mac, and Windows devices. This approach is very interesting for multiplayer gaming and all kinds of communication apps, says Benoliel. Christophe Daligault, the vice president of sales and marketing for the app, told NPR that it works on a "mesh" network: NPR  Mesh networks can be used to set up temporary networks in disaster zones, and even to spread the Internet to remote areas beyond the reach of existing wireless networks and cables. That's the technology that Google and Facebook are counting on for their plans of spreading the Internet across the globe with balloons and drones.  [...] "Once you build a mesh network ... now you have a network that is resilient, self-healing, cannot be controlled by any central organization, cannot be shut down and is always working," Daligault says. "I think that solves many other drawbacks or challenges of the mobile broadband Internet today." He says none of this would be possible without the rapid spread of smartphones, because that means no extra hardware is needed. "Each [phone] becomes a router and in a sense you're growing the Internet  everyone who joins the mesh network creates an extension of the Internet," Daligault says. "In a year or two from now, I think people won't even remember that you had to be on Wi-Fi or get a cell signal to be able to communicate." The FireChat app can send messages without Internet service as stated. However, the app does some have limitations. Potential users, especially those searching for an emergency communication tool to use during a natural disaster, should visit the FireChat home page to make sure that they understand how the app works: FireChat The messaging app Zello was also widely suggested for emergency communications in September 2017. Although there are several benefits to that particular app during an emergency (it is billed as a "walkie-talkie" app), Zello does not work without the internet.  Zello Toor, Amar.  "This App Lets Rescue Workers Send Offline Alerts When Disaster Strikes"
  The Verge.  19 May 2016. Yu, Alan.  "How One App Might Be A Step Toward Internet Everywhere."
  NPR.  7 April 2014. Simonite, Tom.  "The Latest Chat App for iPhone Needs No Internet Connection."
  MIT Technology Review.  28 March 2014.