The trouble isn’t quite over yet for Brian Williams. Williams, who headed up “NBC Nightly News,” was suspended for six months by NBC this winter. The suspension came in light of the revelation that Williams had not been truthful about an instance in which he claimed to have been in a military helicopter that took fire during the early days of the Iraq War. Now it has come to light that there were other instances in which Williams lied or embellished aspects of his reporting–at least ten have been reported so far.

The current investigation is being conducted internally at NBC, and is said to have five different journalists working on it. The investigators are being led by NBC News senior executive producer Richard Esposito. Given that Williams’ suspension will technically end in August, NBC is under pressure to figure out whether or not they’ll reinstate him to the position. Lester Holt is currently manning the news desk while Williams’ fate remains up in the air.

However, the new discoveries of deception don’t bode particularly well for Williams. Anonymous sources with knowledge of the inquiry told The New York Times about the nature of the new findings, stating:

The episodes under review included details of the incident in Iraq in 2003; statements Mr. Williams made about a missile attack while he was traveling in another helicopter over northern Israel in 2006; and the circumstances under which he received a fragment of a helicopter that crashed during the mission to kill Osama bin Laden in 2011.

According to the Washington Post, there was also an inconsistency in his reporting of events during the Arab Spring uprisings. Williams claimed on “The Daily Show” that he saw certain events of the uprisings firsthand in Cairo’s Tahrir Square, but now it’s unclear if he was actually reporting from the location.

Whether or not the exact details of what Williams was not truthful about will be released to the public remains unknown. If he is, in fact, let go from his position at NBC, executives may need to keep those accusations secret in light of some sort of severance agreement.

According to inside reports, high-ups at NBC are currently meeting to determine Williams’ future. These top players include NBC Universal chief executive Steve Burke, NBC News chairman Andrew Lack, and NBC News president Deborah Turness. While NBC hasn’t confirmed much of this, and this information appears to have mainly come from anonymous sources, it’s clear that matters are on the move. Right now, it doesn’t seem like it would be a particularly good idea to bet on Williams keeping his job, particularly if more instances of exaggeration or untruthfulness come to light.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Brian Williams’ Troubles at NBC Continue appeared first on Law Street.

Update: Europe responds to Fox News’ Fictional Facts

We all know that Fox News interprets the second part of its name very loosely, but it hit a new low this weekend when it allowed guest Steven Emerson to blatantly make stuff up.

This is a clip from “Justice with Judge Jeanine” (A+ alliteration skills, Fox) with Jeanine Pirro, a former New York District Attorney and former Republican nominee for New York Attorney General.

The man in the clip is Steve Emerson and he’s a “terrorism expert.” By that he means he’s an author, writer, and pundit who’s been slammed in the past for his fear-mongering and ability to spread misinformation. He’s well known for repeatedly crying wolf by blaming acts of terror on Islamic extremists, most notably after the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. He said that that attack had a “Middle East trait” of being “done with the intent to inflict as many casualties as possible.”

So this piece is apparently on “no-go zones.” Fox News and other conservative publications have begun using the moniker to describe fictional places where apparently Muslims have taken over and created their own societies within other countries. According to Fox News these areas are “off-limits to non-Muslims.” Also “many of these areas are governed by Islamic Sharia law, and the state is unable to provide even basic public aid such as police, fire, and ambulance services.”

This alleged breakdown of civil society has apparently gone unnoticed by anyone except Fox News contributors. In fact, I was startled to learn from the clip above that Birmingham, UK, also known as the second largest city in the UK, has apparently been turned into one of these “no-go zones.” According to Emerson it’s “totally Muslim.”

This has come as a complete surprise to everyone, including the city of Birmingham. After all, its own website quotes its religious demographics as follows:

46.1% of Birmingham residents said they were Christian, 21.8% Muslim and 19.3% had no religion.

Exactly what Emerson thinks happened to that almost 80 percent of the population that identifies as something other than Muslim is unclear–did they convert? Have they been run out of town? How has no one noticed? In addition, Emerson basically accuses the French government at the very least, and the British and Swedish governments at large of a) not caring about these supposed “no-go zones” and b) not telling anyone about them.

Pretty much everyone has now called Emerson a complete imbecile, because that’s what happens to you when you make shit up on TV and try to pass it off as fact. British Prime Minister David Cameron said that Emerson is “clearly an idiot.”

It’s also important to recognize that Jeanine Pirro sits idly by practicing her shocked-Muslims-are-out-to-get-us face that I am pretty sure they much teach a class on at Fox News. It’s clear that she doesn’t know enough–or care-to try to ask any real follow-up questions on Emerson’s points, many of which could have been debunked by a simple google search.

As soon as the clip made its way to the internet, the hashtag #FoxNewsFacts started trending. It’s a lot of fun to scroll through, but here are some of my favorites:

All students at @unibirmingham have to wear black burqas to receive their degrees. #foxnewsfacts #Birmingham pic.twitter.com/4GdEODHpfq

— Matthew Ward (@HistoryNeedsYou) January 12, 2015

The Queen is now being forced to wear a hijab by ‘Moslems’ due to the sharia law enforcement in the UK #foxnewsfacts pic.twitter.com/PygydYLBGE

— immortal (@omfgitszoya_) January 12, 2015

 

The Flintstones is a documentary that directly refutes evolution. #foxnewsfacts pic.twitter.com/5Hu1pF8rCD — Kathryn Brusco (@KathrynBruscoBk) January 12, 2015

King Joffrey was a noble and just peacemaker. #FoxNewsFacts

— OhNoSheTwitnt (@OhNoSheTwitnt) January 12, 2015

Emerson, has, of course, had to release an apology for his claims about Birmingham. Here’s his apology in full:

You may quote me on this as I will be posting this and taking out an ad in a Birmingham paper. I have clearly made a terrible error for which I am deeply sorry. My comments about Birmingham were totally in error. And I am issuing an apology and correction on my website immediately for having made this comment about the beautiful city of Birmingham. I do not intend to justify or mitigate my mistake by stating that I had relied on other sources because I should have been much more careful. There was no excuse for making this mistake and I owe an apology to every resident of Birmingham. I am not going to make any excuses. I made an inexcusable error. And I am obligated to openly acknowledge that mistake.

So there you have it, Emerson admitted that he was “totally in error.” But something about this apology doesn’t actually sit that well with me. First of all, his apology only appears to address the facts he made up about Birmingham, not the fact that he makes claims that these “no-go zones” exist all over Europe. That’s misinformation too, even though it’s less visibly egregious, it’s just as dangerous in its own way. The way that Emerson’s apology comes across is that he just got it wrong about Birmingham, not overall.

This kind of fear-mongering is disgusting. Emerson came on that show for one reason only: to sensationalize an inaccurate theory and scare people into listening to him. It’s what Fox News, and in the spirit of fairness, any openly partisan “news” source does on a regular basis. After all, remember the Ebola coverage from earlier this year?

Honestly, Emerson will probably be back on Fox spewing his made-up facts before we know it. Or they’ll find someone else to do the exact same thing, because this is what the network does on a regular basis without seeing consequences. In the exact same show, Pirro claimed that President Obama is going to limit our First Amendment Rights. From Pirro’s earlier “Opening Statement“:

I’m surprised the president hasn’t signed a new executive order that simply says, ‘Don’t offend Muslims.’ And make no mistake. As sure as I’m talking to you, there will be efforts to limit our First Amendment, our free speech, to comply with Sharia blasphemy laws, which call for death to those who slander the prophet Mohammed.

I’m an incredibly strong supporter of the First Amendment. Jeanine Pirro and Steven Emerson should be able to say whatever noxious shit they want. But the fact that they get to do so on TV is terrifying.

Europe responds to Fox News’ fictional facts: After Fox News started to receive a lot of flack for its fictional story about “no-go zones” in parts of Europe, Europe is responding. Anne Hidalgo, Mayor of Paris, is planning to sue Fox News over the story. She told Christine Amanpour: “When we’re insulted, and when we’ve had an image, then I think we’ll have to sue, I think we’ll have to go to court, in order to have these words removed.” Hopefully this will provide a wake up call for Fox News–as much as it makes its money off of sensationalizing fear for the American people, not everyone will play as nice when it comes to made up facts.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post No Surprise: Fox News Just Makes Up Facts Now appeared first on Law Street.

Net Neutrality has been the center of an important political and technological debate for a while now. Law Street has covered the different developments extensively. This week, President Obama released a statement affirming the need for net neutrality, and it was a strong one.

If you don’t want to watch the entire statement, here are the sparknotes. Obama affirmed the concept of net neutrality and stated his plan moving forward: he wants the Federal Communications Committee (FCC) to reclassify the internet and protect net neutrality. As he put it in his statement:

To do that, I believe the FCC should reclassify consumer broadband service under Title II of the Telecommunications Act — while at the same time forbearing from rate regulation and other provisions less relevant to broadband services. This is a basic acknowledgment of the services ISPs provide to American homes and businesses, and the straightforward obligations necessary to ensure the network works for everyone — not just one or two companies.

Essentially, Obama wants to prevent Internet Service Providers (ISPs) from changing or altering the speeds at which they provide service to various sites or users. He wants to prevent what’s called “internet fast lanes,” because they mean that ISPs would have control over how fast particular sites load. Fast lanes stifle creativity, equality, and would give a ton of power and money to ISPs such as the much-maligned Comcast.

Of course, Obama can’t support anything without there being a very good chance that the other side of the aisle will get up in arms about it, and that’s exactly what happened here. Rising Republican star Ted Cruz tweeted the following:

"Net Neutrality" is Obamacare for the Internet; the Internet should not operate at the speed of government.

— Senator Ted Cruz (@SenTedCruz) November 10, 2014

There are so many things wrong with this statement, I’m not even entirely sure where to start. It’s almost like Cruz created this tweet during a game of petty political Mad Libs–the prompt would have been “fill in a controversial program that will make people angry with the President without explaining the context, giving a comparison, or even trying to justify it.”

First of all, this shows that Cruz fundamentally does not understand what net neutrality is. Luckily, the very denizens of the internet whom net neutrality would hurt had a nice response for Ted Cruz–my favorite was the one by the Oatmeal, a humorous web comic. In addition to being a great take down of Cruz, it is also a pretty good explanation of net neutrality for the uninitiated. Take a look:

Dear @SenTedCruz, I’m going to explain to you how Net Neutrality ACTUALLY works http://t.co/rQWMlmJTmY pic.twitter.com/dvxQGDZMBF

— Matthew Inman (@Oatmeal) November 10, 2014

The Oatmeal’s point is simple–Cruz takes money from the very same ISPs that want to be able to charge people more for their services. And then he turns around and posts something on Twitter that’s not just horribly inaccurate but clearly inflammatory. Because he most likely does not understand net neutrality.

But Cruz and the people who work for him know how to score political points. And comparing anything to Obamacare is going to be a winning metaphor among those who have decided that Obamacare is the devil incarnate.

The fact that Cruz is against net neutrality is a bit upsetting though. It stands directly in contrast to the principles he purports to support. Cruz’s website focuses heavily on the idea of small business success, and working hard to achieve your goals.

Those principles–economic success through small business growth, pulling oneself up by the bootstraps–of Republican theory have been made so much easier by the advent of the internet. Now an entrepreneur can start a small business and use the resources provided by global connectivity to reach customers all over the world. A student who doesn’t have access to very good educational resources can use the internet to learn, for free.

But Ted Cruz would rather compare the internet to Obamacare because it’s easy.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Ted Cruz Doesn’t Know or Care What Net Neutrality Is appeared first on Law Street.

We teach our children that lying is bad. Except, apparently, when it’s done in furtherance of a political campaign in Ohio. At least that’s what a Federal Judge ruled last week. A law was passed recently in Ohio that forbid individuals from making statements about political candidates that they knew to be false. The now-defunct law stated that it’s a crime to:

[P]ost, publish, circulate, distribute, or otherwise disseminate a false statement concerning a candidate, either knowing the same to be false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not, if the statement is designed to promote the election, nomination, or defeat of the candidate.

The law was challenged as unconstitutional, and ended up in the hands of District Court Judge Timothy Black. Black decided that it was unconstitutional, citing free speech concerns. Although there are a few different court cases floating around, the debate at its core came from actions taken in 2010 by a pro-life group called the Susan B. Anthony List. Despite a law on the books in Ohio that prevented knowingly false statements from being made about political contenders, the Susan B. Anthony List created a giant billboard about former Representative Steve Driehaus who was running for reelection. The billboard claimed that by supporting President Obama’s healthcare plans, Driehaus supported abortion. Driehaus objected, given that he is actually pro-life. The resulting argument and various charges filed sparked the court case that was decided by Black last week.

Much of Black’s argument centered on finding the least-restrictive way to prevent false political speech. Rather than restricting false statements by leaving it up to the government — ostensibly the Ohio election board — to decide where the line is. Black opined that the least restrictive way to deal with false statements released about candidates is to respond with the truth. Black, in an interesting move, went so far as to quote Netflix’s hit political drama, House of Cards, explaining:

The more modern recitation of this  longstanding and fundamental principle of American law was recently articulated by Frank Underwood in House of Cards: ‘There’s no better way to overpower a trickle of doubt than with a flood of naked truth.’

Overall, the law was struck down because the truth should always win out. But Black, awesome House of Cards references aside, I don’t quite buy your logic.

Once, I think, the truth was enough. But in today’s age of the internet, and in a time when the restrictions on political spending seem to melt away with every passing court decision, I’m not sure it will be. In the 2014 midterm elections, there’s a decent chance we’ll break $2 billion dollars in political advertising for congressional races alone. There’s a 70 percent increase in commercials since the 2010 elections. For those who live in districts up for grabs, they’re pretty much guaranteed to not see anything other than political ads. Then there’s the way in which we get information today. We now have the ability to pass around information at lightening speed. It’s incredibly easy to spread lies. Let’s say that I’m a blogger, and I write something untrue about a candidate. A news outlet can report that I said it without validating the fact itself, and pretty soon it doesn’t matter whether I told the truth or not because it’s been planted in everyones’ consciousness. Judge Black just made that even easier to do.

While a “flood of naked truth” sounds great, what happens when there’s more than just a trickle of doubt to counter? What happens when the group telling lies has way more money than the group with the truth? I get the legal argument behind Judge Black’s decision — I really do — but the problem is that it no longer fits with the truth of our times.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Political Lies Now Legal in Ohio appeared first on Law Street.

No one likes a liar. So why do people put their careers and professional reputations in jeopardy just to enhance their resumes? According to Forbes, about 60 percent of hiring managers catch lies on resumes, and the number of applicants who lie on their applications increased since the recession. But why do applicants still lie if they get caught? Aside from looking bad, his or her reputation is tarnished and any future work opportunities with the company are shot.

Moral of the story is don’t do it, but we can take a look at some of the most ridiculous resume lies.

1. Do your research. According to Forbes, one guy wrote on his resume that he was the assistant to the prime minister. The catch? The country he claimed to work for doesn’t even have one. Oops.
   What we learned: When you are truthfully associating yourself with any organization or group, you should do your background research on it. Know who you want to work for. This way you know who and what you represent and ensure you hold the same ideals.
2. Don’t act a fool. One 32-year-old applicant claimed to have 25 years of work experience. She must have matured rapidly as a  seven year old.
   What we learned: Putting ridiculous claims on your resume doesn’t fool anyone, it actually makes you look like a fool. Be as truthful as possible and learn the difference between embellishing your resume to make it shine and lying to get ahead.
3. Be truthful about your history. When applying to the same position at a company on two separate occasions, one applicant provided different work history for each application. That did wonders for the applicant’s reputation.
   What we learned: Employers can and will find out about your history, so be honest. It’s better to be up front than have to confess to a lie you previously told in an interview.
4. List references who will benefit your reputation. An applicant who listed three jobs in several years was definitely disappointed when he didn’t receive a call back. When the interviewer contacted the employers, she found out the applicant held one job for two days, another job for one day, and never worked at the third job. Yikes.
   What we learned: Use references to your advantage. They should make you look and sound great and vouch for your professional skills. Also, listing references who will uncover lies you told on a resume or application will definitely make you look bad.
5. Don’t burn bridges. After an applicant was fired from a company, he promptly applied to a different position at the same company. The company was listed under previous employment on his resume, but according to the applicant, he quit his previous job. The company’s records revealed the truth.
   What we learned: In every industry, people have connections all over the country, even the world. With our highly interconnected society, word of mouth spreads like wildfire. It would be wise to make graceful exits and maintain positive relationships in your professional career.

Though these are just a few examples of ridiculous lies applicants have told, many more have been caught. Embellishing resumes is a common problem – applicants who exaggerate their capabilities with coding and design skills, for example, are often embarrassed when tasked with those duties but they’re unable to perform.

Resume fluff just isn’t worth it. Be truthful, be honest and use colorful verbs to enhance your actual experience.

—

Natasha Paulmeno (@NatashaPaulmeno) is an aspiring PR professional studying at the University of Maryland. She is learning to speak Spanish fluently through travel, music, and school. In her spare time she enjoys Bachata music, playing with her dog, and exploring social media trends.

Natasha Paulmeno

Natasha Paulmeno is an aspiring PR professional studying at the University of Maryland. She is learning to speak Spanish fluently through travel, music, and school. In her spare time she enjoys Bachata music, playing with her dog, and exploring social media trends. Contact Natasha at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Resume Lies Really Are the Worst Decision Ever appeared first on Law Street.

This week Law Street broke the story of the FBI’s latest violent crime data — if you haven’t checked it out yet you definitely should. This week, though, I want to talk about crimes of defamation, because though they are rarely discussed, they have similar ability to do serious harm to a person’s life. These are caused by careless, negligent, and often malicious words of one person against another. Some of these people are just talking to hear their own voices, and some are liars — there is a special place in hell for liars.

Crimes of defamation are rarely talked about on a large scale because, really, how do you quantify them?  Where do we draw the line between “Freedom of speech” and “defamatory content?” The area between the two is gray, but the laws exist to determine what is casual conversation and what is illegal.

The Supreme Court defines defamation as a four-element offense, which requires:

1. A false statement purporting to be fact concerning another person or entity;
2. Publication or communication of that statement to a third person;
3. Fault on the part of the person making the statement amounting to intent or at least negligence;  and,
4. Some harm caused to the person or entity who is the subject of the statement. 
   

Some states, like New York, take these federal guidelines a step further and determine various rules for defamation depending on the person being defamed. The first category is for “private” people — a group into which most of us fall. Private people are more broadly protected. If you negligently say something that is defamatory against me, and the above four elements are met, you’ve broken the law. It’s that simple!

New York also has two other classes: public official and public figure. President Barack Obama is a public official; Kim Kardashian is a public figure. (Get the difference?) These people have taken steps to thrust themselves into the public consciousness, and with widespread notoriety comes widespread ridicule and judgment. I believe the legal term is “Mo Money, Mo Problems.”

When dealing with Kim Kardashian, President Obama, or any other public person, New York mandates that a fifth requirement must be met: the defamatory speech must be malicious. Malice requires a specific intent to cause harm to a person — it’s a tougher hurdle to jump, but the rewards are much greater. When a U.K. newspaper claimed that Liberace was gay in the late 50s, he sued it for defamation and libel and was awarded a large amount of money. Tom Cruise won a similar suit, and let’s not forget when Lindsay Lohan tried to sue E-Trade for their drunk baby named “Lindsay.”

Liar, Liar Pants on Fire

The law says that truth is an affirmative defense to any claim of defamation. That is, if the defamatory statement is based on a true story, the speech is within the bounds of the law. This makes sense, right?  If you are a known thief, and someone tells their best friend that you steal, that is totally okay.

What’s not okay is when the defamation occurs and is based on untrue information. The law recognizes that the power of words and one’s reputation can carry a person very far, and does its best to protect an otherwise innocent person from being victimized by lies and rumors.

The point of these defamation laws is to combat that victimization. Because of these laws, an unfairly accused or viciously maligned person can stand firm in her innocence or his correct assertion. An easy way to do this is to have an adjudicatory decision in your favor, i.e. you’ve gone to court and won. In other words, proof is of paramount importance when attempting to bolster one’s argument in a defamation case.

“Show Me the Receipts!”

There are various ways to determine if something is true or false, and one of the easiest ways to make that determination is to review the record. Courts and triers of fact rely on hundreds of thousands, likely even millions, of pages of documents annually in order to parse out the truth from all of malarky. That is why law schools across the country focus on organization, meticulous record keeping, and the importance of creating a paper trail. It’s why we create elaborate filing systems, why every document is backed up, and why everything is committed to writing. The quickest way to piss off a lawyer is to make an assertion without substantiating evidence.

50 Cent, the Poet Laureate of the early 2000s, put it best when he said, “I talk a lot of shit, but I can back it up.”

The moral of the story is that crime is a problem, but we need to broaden the discussion. All criminal activity is reprehensible, and when the law is broken there need to be consequences. The law exists so that criminals don’t do whatever they want to do, and the same preclusions apply with words.

And if all else fails, don’t lie.

—

Peter Davidson is a recent graduate of law school who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy. Tweet him @PeterDavidsonII.

Featured image courtesy of [Angie Linder/Christina via Flickr]

The blog that feeds my insatiable hunger for “RHONJ” .gifs: RealityTVgifs

Peter Davidson II

Peter Davidson is a recent law school graduate who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy. Contact Peter at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Liar, Liar Pants on Fire appeared first on Law Street.

Ask anyone what the biggest political controversy is of President Obama’s presidency: you’ll hear a few people talk about Benghazi and the NSA will inevitably come up. But it’s pretty safe to say that the majority of respondents will reference the Affordable Care Act. Otherwise known as ObamaCare, the ACA has been a huge talking point for partisan politics. And like with any hugely-partisan issue, lies abound. Here are the top 10 lies being told about the ACA:

10. 8.2 million Americans can’t find full-time work because of ObamaCare
Who Told it: The RNC and multiple Republican politicians, including John Boehner and Eric Cantor.

Courtesy of Talk Radio News Service via Flickr.

Why it’s a lie: The RNC looked at the Bureau of Labor Statistic’s figures this summer. They report the amount of people who are working a part-time job and would like to be working full time. What they do not report is why these workers are working a part time job….in fact there’s literally nothing about the Affordable Care Act in these statistics. Awesome unfair extrapolation RNC, you go.

9. “Obamacare contains an ‘abortion surcharge and a secrecy clause’ that forces ‘pro-life Americans…to pay for other people’s abortions.” 
Who told it: Rep Chris Smith (R-NJ)

Why it’s a lie: If you don’t want abortion coverage, you don’t choose one of the plans that includes abortion coverage. States are required to offer plans with and without the provision. If a woman chooses to have abortion coverage, she pays a separate fee into a separate account so that no federal dollars support abortion services. Every American has the option to choose a plan that does not give to abortion coverage.

8. Obamacare will add $6 trillion to the deficit.
Who told it: Rep George Holding (R-NC)

This was the time the same Rep fell asleep in Congress.

Why it’s a lie: Because the Affordable Care Act won’t raise the deficit at all, as projected by the CBO. In fact, it will reduce the deficit. Go back to sleep, Rep Holding.

These next couple examples will come from a category I like to call “things that happened on Fox News that aren’t true.”

7. A woman named Allison Denijs went on the Sean Hannity show and claimed that Obamacare would cost her more, and wouldn’t contain insurance for her daughter with a preexisting condition. 

Who said it: It was part of a segment on Sean Hannity’s show meant to show that “Average Americans are feeling the pain of Obamacare and the healthcare overhaul train wreck.”

Why it’s a lie: Stories like this are popping up on conservative outlets all across the country. But the case is that these stories aren’t actually true. Let’s look specifically at Ms. Denijs’s story. Her family currently pays $13,000 to purchase their own insurance, and then another $600 a month to cover their daughter with a preexisting condition. But under Obamacare, preexisting conditions are no longer an issue. A reporter who interviewed her found that she had never even looked at the exchange, and that she could find almost the exact same plan for just $7600 a year through the exchange.

6. On the same program, a man named Paul Cox claimed that he had to cut back on employee’s hours at his small construction business. 
Who said it: It was part of a segment on Sean Hannity’s show meant to show that “Average Americans are feeling the pain of Obamacare and the healthcare overhaul train wreck.”

 Why it’s a lie: The same Slate journalist who followed up on the Denijs’ story found that Mr. Cox only has 4 employees. Remember, Obamacare only applies to small businesses with 49 employees or more. This was the result of Slate’s interview with Cox: ” Paul revealed that he has only four employees. Why the cutback on his workforce? “Well,” he said, “I haven’t been forced to do so, it’s just that I’ve chosen to do so. I have to deal with increased costs.” What costs? And how, I asked him, is any of it due to Obamacare? There was a long pause, after which he said he’d call me back. He never did.”

5. Congress and the President are exempt from Obamacare. 
Who told it: Lots and lots of people. I’ll choose to harp on Rep Steve Scalise (R-LA) though.

Why it’s a lie: The ACA provides insurance for people who don’t already have it through employers. Congress provides insurance to its staffers and members. So in a sense, they are exempt, it’s just the same way that most Americans are. They do not need to use the exchanges to find insurance because they already have it.

On the note of people being exempt….

4. Muslims, Amish, and some other religious groups are exempt from the law. 

Who said it: A few different sources, but it mainly came from a chain email/Facebook/meme that claims that the word “Dhimmitude” is contained in the ACA text. It claims that Dhimmitude is the “Muslim system of controlling non-Muslin populations conquered through jihad (Holy War). Specifically, it is the TAXING of non-Muslims in exchange for tolerating their presenceAND as a coercive means of converting conquered remnants to Islam!”. It also claims that “Muslims are specifically exempted from the government mandate to purchase insurance and also from the penalty tax for being uninsured! Islam considers insurance to be “gambling,” “risk-taking,” and “usury” and is thus banned. Muslims are specifically granted exemption based on this.”

Why it’s a lie: There is a “religious conscience” exemption in the ACA. But it’s not based on a religion as a whole, rather a specific sect. For example, Amish might be exempt because they have established a history of making their own provisions. Self-employed Amish, don’t, in fact, pay Social Security taxes because they don’t collect Social Security benefits. They are self-sufficient. Muslims in the US are required to have the insurances as everyone else, for example, car insurance. They do not have the same kind of history as Amish groups, so they most likely wouldn’t meet this exemption.

3. It’s possible to go to jail if you don’t pay for insurance under Obamacare. 
Who said it: On Fox and Friends on October 28th, Brian Kilmeade stated that young people will either get insurance or pay the penalty “in order to avoid prison time or whatever ramifications.”

Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire

Why it’s a lie: There is a penalty in place if you don’t have insurance through an employer and don’t get it through the exchanges or some other means–$90 or 1% of income. However, there is specifically no criminal penalty–meaning it’s impossible to go to prison. (Unless of course, you don’t pay any of your taxes, but that’s a whole different story.) Here’s what the ACA says:

In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure.

2. President Obama lied when he said “If you like your coverage you can keep it.”
Who said it: Everyone. I’m not kidding. Everyone.

Why it’s a lie: So this one is tricky. Obama did, multiple times, say if you like your coverage, you can keep it. Multiple times. And the thing is, that’s not completely true. If you like your coverage, but your coverage covers absolutely nothing, then you cannot keep it. The purpose of the ACA is to make sure that every single person in the United States has affordable, adequate healthcare that won’t lead to bankruptcy if a medical emergency occurs. If you’re a healthy youngish adult, it’s completely possible to get an insurance plan that stays great if you’re healthy, but bankrupts you if something happens. So, some people won’t be able to keep their plans, because their plans are bare-bones pieces of crap from the insurance companies that barely cover a paper cut. Was it correct of Obama to say that everyone can keep their plans? No. And he deserves all the political backlash he’s receiving for that. But, does forcing people to get adequate coverage hurt anyone? Absolutely, not. It’s good for those people, it’s good for the economy, and chances are it might even be cheaper. Remember to look for the silver lining, people.

1. Obamacare is the worst thing to happen to the US since slavery.
Who said it: Dr. Ben Carson during the Value Voters Summit.

Why it’s a lie: To channel the always amazing Amy Poehler: REALLY? Really, Dr. Ben Carson, since slavery? To begin, how could you ever consider comparing a bill intended to provide healthcare to everyone to enslaving other humans. That’s not apples vs. oranges, that’s kittens vs. demons. Also, I know that a lot of us slept through US History, but this country has done a lot of horrible, horrible things since slavery. We’ve had half a dozen wars, Japanese-American internment, dropping nuclear bombs on other nations, and now I’m too angry to think of any more. But seriously, Dr. Ben Carson, how did that ever seem like a good comparison?

And I know I’m supposed to be done now, but for anyone else who wants to get really angry today, let’s remember that a very large percentage of Americans don’t even know what the ACA is. Need I remind you of this Jimmy Kimmel video?

That’s it, I’m done.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [LaDawna Howard via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ObamaStillCares: Top Ten Lies About the Affordable Care Act appeared first on Law Street.