Mediaboss Marketing

The yearly Road to the Final (RTTF) promotion is back in FIFA 22 Ultimate Team with new dynamic player items that progress through the EFA Champions League, UEFA Europa League, and UEFA Europa Conference League tournaments.

There are 18 new, incredible RFFT cards in total. Among them are players like 92-rated Sadio Man from Liverpool, 89-rated Gareth Bale from Real Madrid, 88-rated Josip Ilii from Atalanta, and 90-rated Jamie Vardy from Leicester City.

You can get these cards through player packs if youre lucky or you can buy them on the FUT market. All players featured in the Road to the Final can receive up to five additional upgrades as the tournaments happen.

The first upgrade can come during the first knockout game win after the campaigns launch, followed by another in qualifying for the quarterfinals, one in qualifying for the semifinals, one in qualifying for the final, and the last one for winning the tournament.

EA will also release untradable RTTF cards through squad building challenges (SBCs), RTTF objectives, and more during the campaign. Many of the names featured this year were selected in the promos last edition as well, which didnt please many FIFA fans, however.

Here are all of the Road to the Final cards added to FIFA 22 Ultimate Team today:

Continued here:
Road to the Final promo brings new dynamic player items to FIFA 22 Ultimate Team - Dot Esports

First Amendment rights on the University of Iowa campus have been violated.

Recently, *The Daily Iowan* sat down with University of Iowa President Barbara Wilson to discuss, among other things, her thoughts on the new mandatory Freedom of Speech training on campus. Wilson was quoted as praising the training by saying it reminds us what our efforts should be around encouraging open dialogue, even if its sometimes hurtful and difficult and involves conflict.

Further,Wilson said that there will exist a tension between the legal underpinnings of the First Amendment and our ability to make sure people feel like they belong here [on campus].

The DI editorial board did not share Wilsons praise for the new training, and instead took it as an opportunity to attack Iowa Republicans hypocritical free speech platform. Lumping recent university and statewide events together into one piece, the editorial board decried Republicans for taking a freedom of speech for me, but not for thee stance. This includes mandatory training.

However, those close to what has happened at the College of Dentistry and the College of Public Health understand that this is hardly the case. The new Freedom of Speech training is about the First Amendment because First Amendment rights on campus have been violated. Both details of these two cases are public knowledge and uniquely hit on the tension Wilson mentioned.

Instead of exploring this tension or doing a myriad of other things in the spirit of honest journalistic inquiry, the editorial board squandered an opportunity to use its voice by simply blaming Republicans. In other words, the board did nothing in its editorial to lead readers into open dialogue with alternate viewpoints. This makes me believe that though the First Amendment is plastered on the wall of [their] newsroom, the DI editorial board needs a refresher like all of us, too.

-Jacob Olson, Iowa City resident

See the original post here:
Letter to the Editor | We need First Amendment training - UI The Daily Iowan

RichardLabunski| Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

Sarah Palin has lost the first round in her libel suit against TheNew York Timesafter a jury concluded that the former vice-presidential candidate failed to prove that the newspaper acted with actual malice when it published an editorial linking her political action committee to the 2011 shooting of 19 people, including former Rep. Gabrielle Giffordsin Tucson.

But when Palin appeals, her case has the potential to do more than reverse the jurys verdict. It could fundamentally change the First Amendment by giving conservative judges what they have wanted for decades: the chance to overturn the Supreme Courts landmark decision inNew York Times v. Sullivan(1964) and its "actual malice" standard. That would make it significantly easier for public officials and public figures to sue those who make inaccurate statements about them.

There was an unusual development in thePalincase. While the jury was deliberating, Judge Jed Rakoff announced that if the jury found for Palin, he would overturn that ruling. Several jurors learned of the judges decision before the verdict was rendered. The court of appeals and the Supreme Court will likely consider whether that improperly influenced the jury.

More: Sarah Palin loses lawsuit against New York Times over libel allegations

More: Two justices say Supreme Court should reconsider landmark Sullivan case

Nevertheless, that will not be the key issue in Palins appeal. Of much greater significance is an almost 40-year-old Supreme Court case involving a publications negative product review.

InBose Corp. v. Consumers Union(1984), the Court held that to protect the First Amendment, appellate courts have an obligation to closely scrutinize a trial courts judgment when it rules against defendants in libel cases. Like Palin, Bose Corp. was a public figure. The trial judge ruled that the company was able to prove actual malice when its new speaker system was criticized in the magazine. The Court of Appeals reversed, and the Supreme Court agreed with the appellate court.

Central to theBosecase and Palins appeal is the Courts interpretation of Section 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. TheBosedecision requires appellate courts to conduct ade novoreview in cases involving the First Amendment to make sure that "the judgment does not constitute a forbidden intrusion on the field of free expression.

An appellate court must, in effect, retry the case by conducting an independent evaluation of the evidence to see if it justifies an exception to the usually robust protection the First Amendment provides for almost all forms of speech.

This goes against the way courts usually function. Appellate judges do not see witnesses in person to evaluate their credibility. They dont have access to all the evidence the jury considered. They read briefs from the attorneys and hear oral arguments. Federal Rule 52(a) tries to prevent appellate judges from second-guessing the trial courts evaluation of the facts by prohibiting the reversal of the lower courts ruling unless it is clearly erroneous, a difficult standard to meet.

More: Sarah Palin v. New York Times rightly questions media defamation protections

The Supreme Court inBoseheld that the First Amendment is too important to be subject to the clearly erroneous standard, and it noted that Rule 52(a) does not forbid a review of the entire trial record. But it did not answer a question of great importance: Can appellate courts conduct their own review when the media organization wins at trial, as in the Palin case? Some legal scholars have argued that it is unfair to the plaintiff if such a comprehensive review takes place only if the defendant loses.

Boseis mainly about protecting the First Amendment. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that thede novorequirement reflects a deeply held conviction that judges and particularly Members of this Court must exercise such review in order to preserve the precious liberties established and ordained by the Constitution. But he didnotsay that appellate courts can conduct an independent review only when the plaintiff wins at the trial level.

The First Amendment is clearly established in the Constitution, but the right to be compensated for harm to reputation caused by false and defamatory statements predates the Constitution. It has long been considered a necessary exception to First Amendment rights.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch have strongly argued thatSullivanshould be reversed, and other conservative members of the court may agree. Justice Thomas wrote, New York Times (v. Sullivan)and the Courts decisions extending it were policy-driven decisions masquerading as constitutional law. Instead of simply applying the First Amendment as it was understood by the people who ratified it, the Court fashioned its own federal rule(s) by balancing the competing values at stake in defamation suits.

Here are two steps the Supreme Court may take in thePalincase:

First, the court can conclude that the actual malice standard which requires a plaintiff to show by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant either knew the statement was false or recklessly disregarded whether it was false or not is so difficult to prove that it lets purveyors of false and defamatory speech go unpunished and those harmed to be uncompensated. The court could devise a standard that is closer to the negligence requirement that most states impose on private persons bringing libel suits, which is much easier to prove than actual malice.

And second, after creating a new standard for public officials and public figures, the court may conduct ade novoreview using the ambiguity ofBoseas precedent and conclude that Palin met the new standard and grant her damages, thus avoiding a return to Judge Rakoffs courtroom for another trial.

It may take several years for the appellate decisions to be issued in thePalincase, but it seems thatSullivanand the First Amendment are in danger.

Richard Labunski, Ph.D., J.D., is a retired journalism professor and author of James Madison and the Struggle for the Bill of Rights. He is professor emeritus at the School ofJournalism and Media at the University of Kentucky. Email:richlab@aol.com

Our subscribers make this reporting possible. Please consider supporting local journalism by subscribing to the Journal Sentinel at jsonline.com/deal.

See the original post:
Sarah Palin lost the first round against The New York Times. Her lawsuit is still a threat to the First Amendment. - Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a First Amendment free speech and religious freedom case with potential major implications for all public employers.

In Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, the Court will determine whether a public school district unconstitutionally violated a former high school football coachs First Amendment free speech and free exercise rights when it suspended his employment after he defied the districts repeated directives to stop praying at mid-field following his teams games.

The case involves multiple significant First Amendment questions for public employers, including the scope of what constitutes government speech and whether public employers may rely on the Establishment Clause to prohibit otherwise private and protected religious expression. The Courts decision to hear the case, particularly with its conservative super-majority, portends the Court broadly curtailing public employers ability to restrict religious expression in the workplace.

Kennedy v. Bremerton School District

A. Factual background

As we discussed in our previous commentary, Kennedy, a practicing Christian, began his career as a football coach in 2008 at Bremerton High School, a public school in Washington state. He initially instituted a practice of praying alone at mid-field that evolved to include simple prayers with student athletes and finally, to longer motivational speeches at midfield after the games with religious content.

In September 2015, the school district ordered Kennedy to stop praying so that the district did not violate the Establishment Clause, and it offered him several accommodations to enable him to pray privately. Kennedy declined these accommodations, insisting that his religious activities must take place at mid-field after the game in full public view. He took to multiple social media sites to announce publicly his non-compliance. Thereafter, the district placed Kennedy on administrative leave, and he was not recommended for re-hire during the annual renewal process.

Kennedy did not apply for a 2016 coaching position. In August 2016, Kennedy sued the school district in federal district court, alleging the district violated his rights under the First Amendment and Title VII, and sought injunctive relief in the form of reinstatement.

B. SCOTUS declines to hear Kennedys bid for injunctive relief

The case has a long procedural history. Most notably, in 2019, the Supreme Court previously declined to hear Kennedys appeal of the Ninth Circuits refusal to grant him injunctive relief in the form of reinstatement during the pendency of his lawsuit. Justice Alito, however, wrote a statement regarding that denial, joined by Justices Thomas, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, in which he criticized the Ninth Circuit, saying its understanding of the free speech rights of public-school teachers was both troubling and something that may justify review by the Court in the future.

C. The Ninth Circuit sides with school district, affirms dismissal of case

On the merits, in March 2020, the district court granted the school districts motion for summary judgment, holding that the risk of constitutional liability associated with Kennedys religious conduct was the sole reason the district ultimately suspended him. The lower court further held that the school districts actions were justified due to the risk of an Establishment Clause violation if the school district allowed Kennedy to continue with his religious conduct.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed in March 2021. As to Kennedys free speech claim, the Ninth Circuit held that Kennedys prayers occurred within the scope of his official duties as a public employee and, therefore, under Supreme Court precedent, the First Amendment did not protect his speech. The Ninth Circuit specifically noted the following facts in support of its ruling:

Taken together, the Ninth Circuit ruled Kennedys religious conduct occurred in the course of his public duties. The Ninth Circuit further held that the school district had a compelling state interest in avoiding an Establishment Clause violation, therefore justifying regulation of Kennedys speech even if private and protected.

With respect to Kennedys free exercise claim, the Ninth Circuit held that the school district had the same compelling state interest in avoiding a violation of the Establishment Clause, therefore satisfying the onerous strict scrutiny standard to justify the school districts admitted impingement on Kennedys free exercise rights. Specifically, in large part because Kennedy refused any accommodations from the school district that would allow it to avoid violating the Establishment Clause, the court ruled the districts directives to stop praying at mid-field were narrowly tailored to the compelling state interest of avoiding a violation of the Establishment Clause.

What this means for you

All public employers should pay close attention to how the Court rules in Kennedy. The case involves multiple significant First Amendment questions with potential larger implications for all public employers.

The first question involves the scope of what constitutes government speech, i.e., whether Kennedys religious speech came as a public employee, with no First Amendment protection, or as a private citizen, with ordinary First Amendment protections. In general, determining whether a public employees speech is protected under the First Amendment requires a fact-intensive balancing test, with particular focus on whether the speech occurred within the scope of the public employees official duties. The Courts decision to accept this case suggests that at least four, and likely more, members of the Courts conservative super-majority want to ensure that public employers understand and respect their employees rights to religious expression in the workplace. The Court may take this opportunity to broaden how and why quasi-public speech in the workplace like Kennedys prayers are protected under the First Amendment. At minimum, public employers should expect the Court to clarify when a public employees speech is private and, therefore, subject to ordinary First Amendment protection.

The second question confronting the Court is whether, assuming Kennedys speech is private and protected, the Establishment Clause nonetheless compels public schools to prohibit such religious expression. This inquiry will require the Court to weigh the relationship between the Establishment Clause, the Free Exercise Clause and the Free Speech Clause. The Court has trended towards affirming greater (i.e., ordinary) First Amendment free speech protection in recent terms. The Court also seems unlikely to relegate an individuals free exercise rights to the governments interest in avoiding an Establishment Clause violation except in extremely narrow circumstances. At minimum, public employers should expect the Court to clarify the circumstances when the Establishment Clause compels public employers to act against their employees faith that may otherwise constitute religious discrimination.

It is unclear whether the Court will answer these questions narrowly or provide broader guidance. Justice Alitos earlier statement, joined by three conservative justices, suggests the Courts new conservative supermajority is poised to curtail public employers ability to restrict religious expression in the workplace more broadly than just on the facts of Kennedys case.

Contact us

If you have questions about the potential implications of this case on your public workplace, please contact John Borkowski, Aleks Rushing, Sam Mitchell or your Husch Blackwell attorney.

Continue reading here:
Legal Alert | Scotus to Assess the Scope of Public Employers' First Amendment Obligations - Husch Blackwell

Its not often that sports and politics collide. But that happened last week, when the Oakwood Adventist Academy (OAA) varsity basketball team forfeited a game that could have put them in competition for the state championship.

The decision by OAA, precipitated by an Alabama High School Athletic Association (AHSAA) ruling, drew the attention of Gov. Kay Ivey. And the governor has sided with the OAA basketball team not the association.

OAA, based in Huntsville, is affiliated with the Seventh-day Adventist Church, a Christian denomination I know something about because Ive been an active member since I was 7. We SDAs are known for a few things that fall outside of mainstream Christian doctrines and practices.

For example, we are taught not to eat pork, shrimp and other animal foods described in the Old Testament of the Bible as unclean. Our doctrines also teach against drinking alcohol and smoking cigarettes.

But most notably, we go to church on Saturdays, honoring what many call the Jewish Sabbath as a weekly holy day meaning sundown Friday to sundown Saturday.

Historically, for most SDAs, that has meant no secular activities during those 24 hours. No work, except for those who work for the church or are first responders (medical professionals, police officers, fire fighters, etc.). No play, meaning no secular music concerts, movies, television shows, and other activities that can be indulged in during the other six days.

No play also includes no competitive sports.

Notice the qualifiers I used: historically and most. Some SDAs deviate, based on preference or principle. But most still adhere to the basic idea of Sabbath-keeping.

So when the OAA basketball team learned its game was scheduled for this past Saturday at 4:30 p.m. before sundown the team decided to put its faith over a chance to be one of Alabamas best high school teams. That got Iveys attention especially, perhaps, because there was another option.

Not for the OAA team. But for the AHSAA.

The AHSAA could have allowed the team and its opponent to swap schedules with the teams slotted for 7:30 p.m. According to my OAA sources, the affected teams were willing to do just that. So why wasnt the AHSAA? Its representatives wont say.

Apparently, Gov. Ivey was wondering the same thing. So she wrote the AHSAA a letter.

I hope youll understand why I was most disturbed to read about Oakwoods alleged treatment at the AHSAAs basketball tournament, the governor wrote. This episode raises some very pressing questions, not only for me but for public officials and citizens across our great State.

Among other things, Ivey asked who at the AHSAA was responsible for this decision and if it violated any AHSAA policy. She also wants to know this circumstance can be prevented from happening again.

The governor seems to want accountability and change. Well see if she gets what she wants.

Ivey also wrote a letter to the OAA team, expressing her support and inviting them to meet with her at the state capitol. My cynical side says that Ivey wants a photo op with young black men affiliated with a historically black institution (Oakwood University, my alma mater).

But I also recognized that this may be about more than politics for Ivey. Of the 2,930 voters who cast a ballot at the Oakwood University precinct in 2020, 83 percent voted a straight Democratic ticket. President Biden beat Donald Trump by 67 percent. Former Democratic Senator Doug Jones beat current Republican Senator Tommy Tuberville by 64 percent.

No matter how magnanimous and supportive Ivey is of the OAA team, shes not likely to get votes from that precinct or most black voters. In fact, I suspect most will respond to her efforts the way she does to Biden in one of her current commercials: Bless her heart. And then they will vote for Democrats anyway.

Either way, whether because of politics or principle, I like what Ivey has done. Not because Im an SDA, but because I believe in the First Amendment and in a society that seeks to accommodate those of all faiths and no faith.

Gov. Ivey and I dont agree on most things. But it appears we do agree on this.

Visit link:
Opinion | Oakwood Adventist Academy basketball is a real First Amendment case - alreporter.com