Did Donald Trump approve of flag burning?
On 29 November 2016, President-elect Donald Trump issued a controversial tweet about imposing strict consequences for flag burning: flag burning Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!  Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 29, 2016 November 29, 2016  Shortly thereafter, people began to circulate a tweet purportedly sent by Trump five years earlier that expressed the opposite view and condoned that form of protest:  Determining that the 2011 tweet had been faked was simple enough using Twitter's advanced search tool, which pulled up the entirety of Trump's February 2011 remarks on Twitter and turned up no such post. February 2011 Also, Donald Trump's tweets garnered far less engagement back in 2011 than they would several years later, after he began his run for the presidency.  Rather than the tens of thousands of likes and retweets displayed in the purported February 2011 Trump pro-flag burning tweet seen above, his Twitter posts from that period typically prompted less than a hundred of each:   Check out today's video blog https://bit.ly/g75JiuI want to answer more of your questions, tweet me.....  Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 28, 2011 February 28, 2011  ALso coming up: The Celebrity Apprentice returns. Sunday night March 6 at 9 pm EST https://www.nbc.com/the-apprentice/  Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 28, 2011 February 28, 2011  Although it is possible to delete tweets, most of Trump's deleted tweets have been archived by third-party services.
Claim:  The U.S. government prohibits high mileage Volkswagen Passat automobiles from being purchased by U.S. customers.  Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, May 2012] VW Passat 78.5 MPG in the UK  Below is an email about the VW Passat that is made in the USA which gets over 70MPG but is not allow to be sold in the USA.  Just one more Washington Red Flag.I have included a short youtube video and a link to VW UK web site which confirms video is correct. Checked out VW web site and you can order any car they have for sale unless you are a US Citizen. As a US Citizen VW will not deliver the higher mileage cars they manufacture in the US to US Citizens. This is true and can be verified by just trying to buy one of these cars with the blue motion engine for shipment from the US to any destination in the US. I didnt go to the Ford UK web site to check out Ford but Rick has and he says Ford has several models for sale manufactured in the US with mileage of better than 71 miles per gallon on the highway that also are available for sale in Europe but not the US.  VW Web Site: https://www.volkswagen.co.uk/#/new/passat-estate-vii/which-model/engines/fuel-consumption/ https://www.volkswagen.co.uk/#/new/passat-estate-vii/which-model/engines/fuel-consumption/  Origins:  May 2012 saw the circulation of the message cited above, one which claimed that Volkswagen Passat vehicles with 70+ miles per gallon (MPG) figures manufactured in the U.S. were readily available in the UK, but U.S. government regulations prohibited their being sold to U.S. customers.  These claims appear to be misleading, however. First of all, a UK gallon is not the equivalent of a U.S. gallon: 1 UK gallon = 1.2 U.S. gallons, so MPG figures for automobiles in the UK are inflated by 20% relative to U.S. figures.  Additionally, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) process for determining average mileage ratings is generally more stringent than the process used  in other countries, so EPA ratings tend to be on the conservative side.  Therefore, taking both factors into consideration, a car rated at 70 MPG in the UK would likely be EPA rated somewhere around the mid- to high-40 MPG range.  Second, we found no evidence of U.S. government regulations that would prohibit the sale of automobiles such as the referenced Volkswagen Passat in the United states solely because of their mileage ratings.  In general, when an automobile manufacturer offers a particular model of vehicle in other parts of the world but not the U.S., it's because that model has features that don't appeal to U.S. buyers or because the model does not meet U.S. safety or environmental standards.  In the case of the Volkswagen Passat models mentioned here, their lack of availability in the U.S. is likely due to a combination of those factors. Others have noted that U.S. consumers tend to focus less on mileage and prefer gasoline-powered cars with automatic transmissions and larger, higher-performance engines, but the UK version of the Passat cited here is a diesel-powered car with a manual transmission and a smaller, lower-performing engine: The UK Passat engine is very small (the 0-60 time is 12.5 seconds with a manual transmission) and most Americans won't accept such poor performance. Diesel fuel doesn't have a tax-preferred status here in the U.S. either, and the engine is probably at a premium cost due to new technology. What's more is that vehicles in the UK (but not the U.S.) are taxed by carbon emission, so vehicles in the UK are sold with a much wider choice of engines, usually including diesels and far smaller engines than are available for these vehicles in the U.S., because there is a high cost of operating the vehicle already (i.e., higher fuel prices) and these engines minimize the carbon tax portion. The dynamics of car ownership and manufacturing cars in the US versus the UK is vastly different: it's not really the regulations that are to blame.  Manufacturers don't bother to get U.S. EPA certifications because they know that the demand isn't there, especially right now when the demand is for hybrid (or at the really high end, electric). I doubt that such a car would be viable to sell: people in the U.S. don't put much stock in to gas mileage in comparison to power demands. If you are going to charge a premium, you have to offer something noticeably different, and diesel probably isn't going to pass muster for most folks.  Diesel vehicles in the U.S. have a bad reputation. Also, as reported in a Pure Energy Systems News (PESN) article on this topic, a Manager of Product and Technology Communications for Volkswagen of America Inc. stated that: article VW used to sell the same (or similar?) Passat as is sold in Europe here in the US. But it didn't sell very well. It was too expensive and too small in the mid-size sedan segment. So they came up with a larger version with a better price point; and of course the size effects the mileage. Volkswagen's response to our query was non-committal, stating only that they could not say when Bluemotion technology vehicles like the UK version of the Passat would be available in the U.S. We recognize that in this current economic climate, the desires of the driving public have changed.  Many consumers have realized that efficiency and economy are the true values of an automobile. Emissions standards have increased, and we are working to be both ecologically responsible and provide fuel efficient vehicles people want. VW continues to research all options for fuel efficiency. We have no further information at this time if, or when the Bluemotion technology will be available in the US. Last updated:  14 May 2012 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. During floor debate, a Republican legislator complained that state expenditures on TV and film productions have extended to a long-running series celebrating cheating spouses.Really?Rep. Jodie Laubenberg of Parker initially asked a House colleague about his proposed amendment to the House version of the 2014-15 state budget.Rep. Jeff Leach, R-Plano, said he sought to shift money from the states film and music marketing fund to teacher pensions. When last we wrote about the fund, overseen by the governors office, we noted the 2011 Legislature had agreed to spend $16 million each year to market Texas as a film location and promote the Texas music industry, according to the May 26, 2011, House-Senate conference committee report.Laubenberg asked Leach: Would you like me to give you a couple of examples of things being funded with this money? At Leachs go-ahead, Laubenberg replied: How about Bad Kids Go to Hell, Cheaters, ...a TV series on spouses cheating on their wives, kind of glorifying the act of cheating--yeah, entertainment for some, unless youre the one cheated on.After listing other entertainment projects she described as helped along with state funds, Laubenberg closed: You know, if you want to watch this, fine, but I think you ought to do it on your own dime and not the states dime.To our inquiry, Laubenberg later left a message saying she had been reading from a list provided by Leach, whose office emailed us a spreadsheet listing more than 400 projects. A header on the spreadsheet says each one was paid by the Texas Moving Image Industry Incentive Program through March 2013.More detail: The incentive program offers qualifying productions a shot at payments equaling 5 percent to 17.5 percent of the money they spend in Texas or 8 percent to 29.25 percent of eligible wages paid to Texas residents, according to agency information posted online, depending on budget levels and types of production, with both live-action and animated projects eligible.The spreadsheets sixth entry indicates $74,736.58 was paid March 22, 2013, to Bobby Goldstein Productions in Dallas in connection with Cheaters, which is described on the sheet as a reality show. Lower entries show previous payments to the company in connection with Cheaters, $72,714 in May 2012 and $100,082 in May 2011, respectively.By email, gubernatorial spokesman Josh Havens confirmed the state has paid about $248,000 since May 2011 to the Dallas company that produces Cheaters, which is among several hundred projects benefiting from such aid.The program met the incentive program requirements for economic impact and Texas resident employment, Havens said.By phone, the shows executive producer, Bobby Goldstein, told us that he hires more than 20 full-time and probably 30 part-time employees for the show and the company contributes a lot in taxes.So, is the legislator correct that the series celebrates unfaithfulness?Not so, Havens replied, pointing out the message that appears at the start of each episode stating that from the programs surveillance cameras, you are about to view actual true stories, filmed live, documenting the pain of a spouse or lover caused by infidelity. This program is both dedicated to the faithful and presented to the falsehearted to encourage their renewal of temperance and virtue. (We confirmed the text here. )Goldstein said: We dont make this show and make it look like somebody did something good. We point out they did wrong. Its sort of a scarlet A.We viewed excerpts of episodes placed on YouTube by viewers. Our impression was the show centers on confrontations between purported cheaters, cheatees and, often, involved third parties. A vivid example involved a cheating man punching his irate girlfriend in a parking lot; blood runs. Another excerpt showed a man being confronted in a bed as a dominatrix edges out of camera range.Critic Pete Vonder Haar described the show this way in an April 25, 2012, account in theHouston Press, an alternative weekly. The premise of the show is simplicity itself: a man or woman, suspecting their partner of philandering, contacts the steely professional Cheaters investigative team. They, in turn, put the suspected party under surveillance, amassing evidence of their infidelity for presenting to the complainant. A confrontation is arranged between the aggrieved party and their wayward lover. Hilarity then ensues, if by hilarity you mean emotional breakdowns and the occasional threat of physical violence.The article, which Goldstein called accurate, says the show is primarily taped in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, though there have been Houston-area forays.Im not one given to hyperbole, Vonder Haar wrote, but Cheaters is as great an American institution as baseball and morbid obesity. Who but the good old U.S. of A. would so brazenly combine our love of moralistic posturing (the wayward partners are referred to as suspects as if they were felons) with salacious, albeit (barely) pixelated footage of sexual transgressions.Finally, we revisited posted state guidelines for the incentives to see if any provision might restrict support for Cheaters. The guidelines say projects not eligible for the aid include those considered obscene as that term is defined in the states penal code, meaning something the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interest in sex. The code further lists explicit acts defined as obscene and also says something is obscene if taken as a whole, it lacks serious literary, artistic, political, and scientific value.Havens said in his email that the Texas Film Commission felt the project fell well short of the definition of obscene.Our rulingLaubenberg said the state helped fund a show that glorifies cheating spouses.Mild point: The state-supported show, Cheaters, doesnt limit itself to exposing cheating spouses. Were not sure, either, that everyone would agree the show glorifies infidelity, considering its theme is to expose the practice and touch off emotional confrontations. The legislator could have clarified that an intended point of the show is that cheaters are wrongdoers.We rate the claim as Mostly True. In July 2016, a image picturing Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was circulated with text stating that he had freed everyone imprisoned for marijuana offences and expunged their records, and that he was able to enact such a sweeping reform because Canada (unlike the U.S.) has no "prison for profit" facilities:  However, the claim originated not with a news report of any such reform act, but with an article published by the Global Sun on 3 July 2016: A press conference was held last night by The Liberal Party of Canada, on behalf of newly-elected Canadian prime minister, Justin Trudeau about future marijuana laws and regulations. 30 minutes into the conference, Trudeau announced the big news that all members of the parliament have agreed to  and that is pardoning all Canadian prisoners who have been convicted of a minor or major offence of marijuana. The Global Sun is a satirical publication that does not publish factual stories: The Global Sun is a satire website, articles/post on the website are all made-up stories and should not be taken seriously. Although Prime Minister Trudeau has not freed all those convicted of marijuana-related offences from prison, real news suggests Canada may be moving toward legalizing the drug in 2017: legalizing Canada's Liberal Party government will introduce a law next spring to legalize recreational marijuana, Health Minister Jane Philpott disclosed last week at the United Nations. She did not detail who would be allowed to grow or distribute cannabis products. Canada has a lot of options here, said RAND Drug Policy Research Center co-director Beau Kilmer. You have to pay attention to what's going to happen with the regulation and the taxes. That could really shape what happens in terms of people coming in from other countries. You have to decide whether you want to allow that. In November 2019, an old clip from the children's popular show "Sesame Street" started to go viral on Twitter. The clip, which was viewed more than 8 million times in a few days, showed a child named "John-John" counting to 10 with a muppet in 1971, and then showed John-John's return to "Sesame Street" about 20 years later: One of my favorite @sesamestreet moments of all time... pic.twitter.com/WnHgjTQWkb @sesamestreet pic.twitter.com/WnHgjTQWkb  ?Kristina A. Holzweiss #HackingSchoolLibraries (@lieberrian) November 21, 2019 November 21, 2019 While many viewers were delighted that John-John appeared to have grown into an upstanding citizen and member of the U.S. Air Force, others claimed there was a bit more to the story: Many Twitter users pointed to a 2015 article published on I Love Old School Music as evidence that he'd been in trouble with the law. Here's an excerpt from that article, as well as a mugshot of a man named "John Bernard Williams": I Love Old School Music ... John ended up getting convicted of Aggravated Sexual Assault Of A Child in the state of Texas... ... Texas Department Of Public Safety Sex Offender Registry Records reveal that John sexually assaulted a 4 year old female child and that he was sentenced to 5 years in prison, was released on parole and is now under a lifetime mandatory supervision by the state of Texas.   A man named John Bernard Williams truly is on the Texas Public Sex Offender registry. We also found that much of the known biographical information for "John-John" matched with the information of this offender from the Texas Department of Public Safety. the Texas Public Sex Offender For instance, a profile on "Airman John-John" published by the Air Force Service Information and News Center in 1989 identified him as "John Bernard Williams." That article also identified his mother by the first name of "Trina." This is also the name of convicted sex offender John Bernard Williams' mother, according to a 2000 opinion on Williams' court case. Air Force Service Information and News Center 2000 opinion We also know that John-John was born in 1969 because many news outlets reported that the viral "Sesame Street" counting clip was filmed in 1971 when he was just 2 years old. The Muppet Fandom Wiki provides a more specific date of birth for John-John (Sept. 24, 1969), but we have been unable to verify this information. If this information is accurate, though, John-John and John Bernard Williams share the exact same birth date. If it's inaccurate, we still know that they were born in the same year. reported Muppet Fandom Wiki Lastly, in 1998, The New York Times caught up with John-John for the 30th anniversary of "Sesame Street." That article noted that John-John was living in San Antonio, Texas. A year later, charges would be filed against a man named John Bernard Williams in Bexar County, where San Antonio is located, for the sexual assault of a child. San Antonio, Texas. The information we've gathered seems to show that John-John, the 2-year-old child who made multiple appearances on "Sesame Street," may be the same person who ended up on the offender list in Texas. However, it is possible that this is just a coincidence. Given the nature of the rumor, and the fact that we have been unable to definitively tie these two identities together (via family statements, social security numbers, fingerprints, etc.) we are rating this claim "Unproven." We've reached out to the Texas Department Of Public Safety and will update this article if more information becomes available. Ramos, Cindy.  "Grover San Antonian's 14 Years on 'Sesame Street' Influenced His Life."   San Antonio Express-News.  12 May 1998. Sutherland, Anna.  "Airman John-John."   Air Force Service Information and News Center.  1989. Martin, Brett.  "TELEVISION; Still a Bilingual Guy, But Without Muppets."   New York Times.  29 March 1998. iloveoldschoolmusic.com.  "Man Who Played Sesame Street Kid 'John John' Was Convicted Of Heartbreaking Crime Against Child."   22 October 2015. In February 2021, online advertisements appeared to falsely claim that Matt Lauer was long-time journalist Katie Couric's husband. Couric and Lauer previously worked together on the "Today" show on NBC. She left the program in 2006. In November 2017, Lauer was fired from his NBC job as a co-anchor on "Today" for "inappropriate sexual behavior." fired The misleading ads pictured Couric and Lauer together with various texts. For example, one of the ads read: "[Photos] Meet The Man Katie Couric Is Romantically Involved With In 2021."   Another ad said something similar: "[Photos] Meet Katie Couric's Husband."  Both ads were misleading clickbait that led to lengthy slideshow articles. The first one took readers to the Sport Pirate website. Couric and her real husband, John Molner, appeared after more than 80 pages. real husband appeared The second ad went to the Refinance Gold website. It took 266 clicks to reach the page with Couric and Molner: American TV royalty and CBS Evening News host Katie Couric lost her first husband, Jay Monahan in 1998, as he passed away from colon cancer. But she did find love again with John Molner. Apparently, she asked her friend to set her up with a doctor, but they though [sic] that she would be a better match with their banker firmed, John. In 2012, Molner finally called Katie to set up a date and they fell for each other. The couple has been happily married since 2014, and have a blended family now, as each of them have two kids from their previous marriage. Lauer never showed up in either story. The strange inclusion of Lauer appeared to simply be a strategy by the advertisers to draw in readers with a misleading picture. It's true that Couric's first husband, Jay Monahan, died of colon cancer in 1998. He was 42 years old. Over the years, she posted remembrances on social media: died  She left NBC in 2006 to host the "CBS Evening News." At CBS News, she also contributed as a correspondent on "60 Minutes." She later worked for ABC News and Yahoo! News. In 2014, Couric announced on Twitter that she and John Molner had married: announced  In the past, Couric and her current husband hosted a cooking show called "Full Plate." As of February 2021, she was hosting the podcast, "Next Question with Katie Couric." hosted podcast 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 On October 12, 2017 in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, a Nissan SUV carrying four adults and four children was making a left turn onto Florline Boulevard at a green light when a Corvette driven by a speeding off-duty police officer traveling at an estimated 94 MPH in a 50 MPH zone smashed into its passenger side, killing a 1-year-old girl who was ejected from the SUV. As noted in a meme circulated on social media in the aftermath of the accident, the officer behind the wheel of the Corvette, Christopher Manuel, was not penalized (even though he was driving nearly double the speed limit), while the dead girl's mother (who was a passenger in and not the driver of the SUV), 21-year-old Brittany Stephens, was charged with negligent homicide for not properly securing the child in a car seat:  As is often the case, while the meme provided factual information, it also ignored the many complexities of this case and instead focused on a single, outrage-inducing aspect of it. The primary context omitted here is that both Manuel and Stephens were initially arrested on suspicion of negligent homicide, but prosecutors -- who deliberated for two years -- ultimately felt they could not determine who was more at fault for the child's death, nor could they meet the burden of proof needed to successfully bring criminal charges against Manuel. In the end, they took no action against either party. The crash occurred when the driver of the SUV turned left onto Florline Boulevard while Manuel was traveling northbound on Airline Highway. According to Manuel's arrest report, investigators estimated his vehicle's speed at the time of the accident at 94 MPH based on calculations from data recorded by his car's airbag control module. Both cars had green lights, so the primary issue was determining whether the SUV's driver failed to yield, or whether the Corvette's excessive speed would have made it extremely difficult or impossible for the driver to safely judge the turn. Investigators came down on the side of the latter, and Manuel filed a civil suit alleging that the driver of the SUV was at fault for turning "suddenly and without warning" into his lane. Additional complicating factors were that the driver of the SUV was unlicensed, the vehicle was carrying too many occupants, and no one in the SUV was wearing a seatbelt. Police also stated that Stephens did not properly secure her daughter's car seat, instead placing it on the SUV's center console between the two front seats, which is considered an act of "gross negligence" that was a "contributing factor in the death" of the child. gross negligence As the Baton Rouge Advocate reported, the district attorney felt his office could not fairly determine whom, if anyone, to prosecute: reported East Baton Rouge District Attorney Hillar Moore III said his office decided not to bring charges against either Manuel or Stephens, reasoning that both had contributed to the tragic outcome even though "one suffered a bigger loss." "It becomes a conundrum of 'Who's at fault?'" Moore said. "Do you really want to charge the mom with her child's death? Of course not. Which act truly caused the death, speeding or lack of proper restraint? Is one more culpable than the other? We couldn't really determine that based on the facts of the case and what the law requires." This is a trying decision, Moore said. It weighed on me as a parent with children. One aspect of the controversy surrounding the crash was Manuel's status as a member of the Baton Rouge Police Department, which some critics maintained may have influenced the DA's decision not to prosecute a criminal case against him. Another was that no one involved in the accident was even cited: [Marcus Allen, an attorney] volunteered to represent Stephens for free after news of her case went viral within some circles online. He said Moore's "unilateral decision" not to prosecute "has the look of impropriety" because the case involves a law enforcement officer and argued prosecutors could have avoided that by going forward with the case and allowing the criminal justice system to decide the officer's fate. Police recommended citations for several other people in the SUV with Stephens after finding various safety issues, including that there were too many occupants, none were wearing seatbelts and the driver was unlicensed. Prosecutors had two years to issue those citations but instead let the tickets expire without doing so. They did the same for a misdemeanor speeding count against Manuel, which also expired. Moore said prosecuting Manuel for speeding would have meant essentially forfeiting the option to charge him with negligent homicide because of double jeopardy laws at the time. But once prosecutors ruled out the more serious charge, they could have chosen to issue the speeding ticket then with no major impacts on the case. [Allen] said that's the least Moore's office could have done. "How can you overlook the glaring fact that he was going almost 100 mph?" Allen said. "You just cannot operate a vehicle that fast. For him to walk away from this with no criminal charges ... it almost appears he's above the law." Although prosecutors decided to take no action in the case, some online reports nonetheless mistakenly reported that Brittany Stephens had been convicted and sentenced to prison. reported Skene, Lea.  "Baton Rouge Police: Car Seat Placed on Center Console During Crash Involving Off-Duty Cop That Killed Baby."
  The [Baton Rouge] Advocate.  1 March 2018. The [Baton Rouge] Advocate.  "Off-Duty Baton Rouge Officer Driving Corvette Involved in Airline Highway Crash, Police Say."
  13 October 2017. Skene, Lea.  "Baton Rouge Police Officer Faces No Charges After 2017 Speeding Crash That Caused Baby's Death."
  The [Baton Rouge] Advocate.  13 November 2019. Skene, Lea.  "Mother of Baby Killed in Baton Rouge Crash Involving Off-Duty Cop Arrested for Failing to Secure Child Seat."
  The [Baton Rouge] Advocate.  27 February 2018. Knowles, Hannah.  "A Baby Died After an Officer Crashed His Corvette at 94 MPH, Investigators Say. He Wont Face Charges."
  The Washington Post.  15 November 2019. In late March and early April 2021, Snopes readers inquired about memes circulating on Facebook claiming that legendary actor Morgan Freeman had converted his 124-acre ranch in Mississippi into a bee sanctuary.   The text of the meme read, "Concerned about the loss of bees, Morgan Freeman converted his 124-acre Mississippi ranch into a bee refuge. He hired gardeners, filled acres with clover, planted hundreds of flowering trees, purchased 26 hives, and has turned himself into a beekeeper." Posts and articles on various websites stating the "Shawshank Redemption" star is a beekeeper with a bee sanctuary at his Mississippi residence have been circulating for years. They are sourced from an interview given by Freeman to late-night comedy host Jimmy Fallon in 2014. During the interview, Freeman acknowledged that he lived in Mississippi and stated he was new to beekeeping, having just purchased his bees from Arkadelphia, Arkansas, two weeks prior: interview  The website Mother Nature News in 2014 quoted Freeman talking about his beekeeping project, reporting that he made the following remarks during a media tour promoting the film "Lucy": quoted There's a concerted effort to bring bees back onto the planet ... We do not realize that they are the foundation, I think, of the growth of the planet, the vegetation... I have so many flowering things and I have a gardener too. Because she takes care of the bees too, all she does is figure out, 'OK, what would they like to have?', so we've got acres and acres of clover, we're planting stuff like lavender, I've got like, maybe 140 magnolia trees, big blossoms. In these comments attributed to him, Freeman mentioned environmental concerns associated with the survival of bees and making efforts to ensure his bees thrive. But he didn't actually state in those remarks that he converted his ranch into a "bee sanctuary" for the purpose of helping the environment. Over the years, news articles have cropped up sourcing Freeman's 2014 comments and reporting that he had converted his ranch in Mississippi to a bee sanctuary. In 2019, a large number of articles were aggregated from a Forbes story with the headline, "Morgan Freeman Converted His 124-Acre Ranch Into A Giant Honeybee Sanctuary To Save The Bees." But the Forbes story also cites Freeman's 2014 interview on Fallon. news articles cropped up Forbes story We were unable to find recent comments by Freeman confirming whether he currently keeps bees at his Mississippi residence, as of this writing. We reached out to Freeman's agency CAA and asked whether Freeman is still beekeeping and whether his effort would be described as a bee sanctuary meant to help the environment, but didn't get a response in time for publication. We will update this story if we hear back. A photograph supposedly depicting the so-called carpet shark, also known as the tasseled wobbegong, has been shared on social media since at least November 2021. Though there is no evidence of digital editing, it does not genuinely depict a tasseled wobbegong  which is a real species of carpet shark  but rather an entirely different species of fish found along the eastern seaboard of the U.S. real species The Snopes newsroom came across the photograph in July 2022 when it was shared to Reddit's r/interestingasfuck subreddit. That post included a caption that framed the image as an underwater snapshot of the tasseled wobbegonging in the "shallow coral reefs off northern Australia, New Guinea, and adjacent islands." That post   But that caption was misleading. The photograph does not show a tasseled wobbegong. Rather, it depicts a goosefish, which is also known as a monkfish or American angler. While we were not able to verify the exact origins of the image in question, we do not doubt that the photograph is authentic, based on similar images showing the goosefish.  A quick reverse-image search showed that the photograph has been circulating on social media in various iterations since at least 2021. quick reverse-image  Tineye Since that time, several social media users pointed out that it was erroneous to call the photographed fish a tasseled wobbegong when it was really a goosefish. several pointed out  Sometimes called a monkfish or American angler, the goosefish (scientific name Lophius americanus) is found in the north and mid-Atlantic. The fish is described by NOAA as having mottled dark brown to olive-green skin on top and whitish skin underneath. Some say the goosefish has a tadpole-like appearance, characterized by a broad head and large mouth. described by NOAA  Goosefish are ambush predators. Though the seafloor-looking fish typically reach lengths of up to 4 feet, they can disappear into their surroundings and sit in camouflage along the ocean floor. The bottom-dwellers use their modified spines like fishing poles to lure prey  small fish including other goosefish  toward their mouths. In addition to fish, goosefish also eat crustaceans, mollusks, seabirds, and diving ducks, notes NOAA.  While the goosefish finds its home waters along the eastern coast of the U.S., the tasseled wobbegong lives in the waters of northern Australia and is a member of the carpet shark family, a predatory species named for its seafloor-dwelling habits.  tasseled wobbegong carpet shark Tasselled Wobbegong. Oceana, https://oceana.org/marine-life/tasselled-wobbegong/. Accessed 11 July 2022.Fisheries, NOAA. Monkfish | NOAA Fisheries. NOAA, 5 May 2022, https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/monkfish. Commercial:  Viral ad featuring the Volkswagen Polo employs suicide bomber imagery. Example:    [Collected on the Internet, 2005] [Note: This video clip is a 2.6 MB file  please be patient while it downloads.]  Origins:  The availability of the Internet as a tool to spread information quickly, cheaply, and (mostly) anonymously has enabled the advent of "viral marketing": buzz-generating  advertisements whose content is unsuitable for traditional media (such as television), distributed through "unofficial" channels such as web sites   and e-mail forwards.  Viral ads may not be obvious about what product they're promoting, or even obvious as advertisements at all.  (BurgerKing's "subservient chicken" promotion is a good example of the latter category.)  subservient chicken  Companies often try to obscure the connections between themselves and their viral ads, sometimes claiming that promotions were "unauthorized" or "accidentally released."  Though this technique may be effective in generating publicity, it can also backfire: If someone does indeed produce an unauthorized viral ad that creates negative publicity for the business it supposedly promotes, how can a company prove they weren't behind it?  This is the dilemma currently faced by Volkswagen regarding a viral ad seemingly calculated to offend as many human beings as possible. The spot begins with a motorist leaving his house and hopping into his Volkswagen Polo  a motorist with a distinctly Middle Eastern appearance who sports a black-and-white checkered kaffiyeh like the one commonly associated in the public mind with the   late Palestinian chairman Yasser Arafat (and thus, by extension, with terrorists and suicide bombers).  After a short jaunt, the driver pulls up in front of a busy restaurant with curbside seating (as women holding babies, talking on cellphones, and just strolling down the street flash by in the background), pulls out a detonator, and depresses the button.   Rather than causing widespread death and destruction, however, the muffled blast is completely contained by the car, leading to the end slogan: 'Polo. Small but tough.' So just who produced this offensive spot?  The ad doesn't appear to be a spoof put together by some rogue amateur filmmakers, as its production values (e.g., shot on 35mm film, probably at a cost in the tens of thousands of dollars) would indicate.  Paul Buckett, a Volkswagen spokesman, has denied that the automobile manufacturer had anything to do with it: Two creatives known to our advertising agency, DDB (Doyle Dane Bernbach) London, sent in this work on spec. The agency wouldn't have anything to do it. I can only assume the people who made it put it on the web.  We were horrified. This is not something we would consider using: it is in incredibly bad taste to depict suicide bombers.  It gives the impression we've condoned or supported it, and is potentially very damaging to Volkswagen. Our legal department is planning an action . . .' According to the UK newspaper The Guardian, the "suicide bomber" spot was created by the Lee and Dan team, a British pair who have produced a number of other advertisements (including virals) known for their quirkiness.  The duo maintained that the clip was a self-promotional work not intended for public viewing: Lee and Dan We made the advert for Volkswagen. We never really intended it for public consumption. It was principally something we made to show people in the industry but it got out somehow. About half the work we do is for our own purpose, it is self-promotional. The ad's a comment on what's happening at the moment. People see this on the news every day. The car is the hero that protects innocent people from someone with very bad intentions. The ad got out accidentally and spread like wildfire. We're sorry if it has caused any offence. Others quoted by the Guardian concurred with the self-promotional nature of the spot, if not necessarily about its release being an "accident": Matt Smith, of the ad agency Viral Factory, said he thought the advert had been made as a "test" in order to get work. "My suspicion is that it was made for a very small audience in order to get work. It's such a risky piece  it wasn't meant to be seen by a mass audience."  A spokesman for Volkswagen said the company was considering legal action and blamed the advert on "two young creatives who are trying to make a name for themselves". "We don't take these sorts of risks with our advertisements. We regard ourselves as honest and respectable." On 26 January 2004, the Guardian reported they had located the director of the clip, Stuart Fryer, who disputed Lee and Dan's claim its production had cost 40,000 and affirmed that the spot was not meant for public viewing: Both Lee and Dan have apologised for the film, which they said had a 40,000 budget, but have refused to identify themselves or explain how it was funded. But in a new development, MediaGuardian.co.uk has tracked down the director of the spoof advert, Stuart Fryer, 35. Breaking his silence for the first time, he said he was horrified by the reaction to the ad and had only ever meant it to be used on a showreel and never seen by the public. He disputed Lee and Dan's estimate of its 40,000 cost, saying the cost had been "more like 400". "If it cost that much I would like to know where the money went," Mr Fryer said. "It was made in my spare time. It's remarkable what you can do for such a low budget. "I just wanted it for show reel purposes, not seen by millions of people around the world. "I don't want to offend people, I just want to make advertisements.I wanted to show it to the Saatchis and BBHs of this world. "Little did I know that the advert that I made would be sent out on the internet and create such a fuss - it's shocked me." Volkswagen also announced that they would be going ahead and pursuing legal action against the video's creators: After a week of prevarication, the car giant has decided to go ahead and sue the people behind the advert on the grounds that it was damaging its reputation around the world and falsely linked the VW with terrorism. "We are taking legal action but because it's early stages we cannot comment further," a Volkswagen spokesman said. But the company privately admitted that it cannot locate Lee and Dan, the London based advertising creative partnership who dreamed up the film, which has been seen around the world via the internet.  "We are prepared to pursue the two individuals but need to locate them to ensure the success of our legal claim," the company said in a private memo, details of which have been obtained by MediaGuardian.co.uk. Last updated:  26 January 2005    Sources:   Brook, Stephen.  "Spoof Suicide Bomber Ad Sparks Global Row."   The Guardian.  20 January 2005.    Brook, Stephen.  "VW to Sue Polo Bomb Ad Duo."   The Guardian.  26 January 2005.    Sanders, Holly M.  "VW's Ad Is Spoof on Terror."   New York Post.  19 January 2005.    Sanders, Holly M.  "Riding the Auto-Bomb."   New York Post.  20 January 2005.    Smith, David.  "Suicide Bomber Sells VW Polo."   The Guardian.  23 January 2005.