Mediaboss Marketing

Dress codes are typically implemented by school districts and employers to promote learning, safety, and image.Although such regulations face First Amendment challenges by students, parents, and employees, the courts generally support the schools and employers. In this 2013 photo, Mary Beth Tinker, 61, shows an old photograph of her with her brother John Tinker to the Associated Press during an interview in Washington. InTinker. v. Des Moines Independent Community School District(1969) the Court affirmed students First Amendment rights to free speech.Although the Courts decision upheld students right to express themselves through certain items they wear, the Court has never specified whether that right bars uniforms, dress codes, or grooming requirements.(AP Photo by Manuel Balce Ceneta, used with permission from the Associated Press)

Dress codes are typically implemented by school districts and employers to promote learning, safety, and image.Although such regulations face First Amendment challenges by students, parents, and employees, the courts generally support the schools and employers.

School dress codes that merely exclude types of clothing, such as gang colors or provocative attire, tend to be enacted without controversy. When codes require uniform-like attire, however, many parents and children object.

The Supreme Court has never directly addressed school dress codes. In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969), which involved high school students wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War, the Court affirmed students First Amendment rights to free speech. Although the Courts decision upheld students right to express themselves through certain items they wear, the Court has never specified whether that right bars uniforms, dress codes, or grooming requirements.

Faced with increasing student-discipline problems, particularly from gang violence (involving gangs whose members often identified themselves through items of clothing) and a rise in more prurient clothing in the 1980s and 1990s, school systems in the 1990s began to introduce dress codes, school uniforms, and uniform-like dress codes.

In two State of the Union addresses, President Bill Clinton advocated public school uniforms, similar to those in parochial schools and many public schools overseas. The number of schools that adopted uniforms is not known, but in California, where they were first mandated, at least 50 schools abandoned their uniform requirements between 2000 and 2002.

Short of restricting pure political expression that does not disrupt learning, school officials have much constitutional latitude.The law in this area is far from settled, and the courts frequently side with the schools when dress requirements are challenged by students and parents.

In practice, however, the bitterness and the cost of litigation have reduced the practical maneuvers of school administrators and school boards.

If school officials attempt to punish students who exercise their expressive rights by wearing buttons, writing on fingernails, or protest messages on shirts, they could find themselves slapped with protected-speech or petition action lawsuits. In addition, in districts that have imposed incentives to increase participation in voluntary uniform and uniform-like dress codes, threats of or actual lawsuits have quickly emerged to halt this allegedly coercive practice.

Opponents of dress codes and uniforms are often fall into a few categories:

Similarly, the motives of advocates of mandatory uniforms or uniform-like dress codes vary from those who want to de-emphasize clothing and promote the egalitarianism implicit in similar clothing to those who primarily wish to avoid fights with their children over what to wear.

School administrators and teachers are divided on the issue. Some, particularly those in underperforming or less disciplined school environments, welcome uniforms and uniform-like dress codes. Supporters also argue that uniforms help identify intruders on school property.

Opponents contend, however, that uniforms also make it more difficult to identify distressed students, who may reveal symptoms of psychological disorders by wearing unusual clothing. They also point out that teachers often waste the first minutes of class trying to determine which of their students who are not in uniform have waivers and which are violating the code.

In addition, friction and discipline problems may worsen as rule breakers crowd the principals office. Over time, students may simply stop wearing the uniform or uniform-like dress, or they may mock the policy by wearing the uniform in a revealing way.

Scholars have studied the effects of uniforms and dress codes on discipline and academic performance, but their findings have been mixed: Researchers, including sociologist David L. Brunsma at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, have concluded that no relationship exists, that the uniform or dress code is much less important than most other factors, or even that uniforms lower test scores.

Employers are entitled to enact dress codes, including uniforms, if there is a rational basis for the requirement, such as fostering a particular business image, encouraging harder work, or complying with public safety and health standards. They can ban anything reasonably deemed to be distracting from work, including body art.

Employers may also offer alternative dress codes, such as minimum requirements for casual Fridays. Although employees do not have a First Amendment right to dress in any way they choose to express themselves, they do have rights under the First Amendment to contest a dress code in a civil manner without fear of employer retribution.

The courts generally defer to employer judgments and have thus upheld prohibitions of torn clothing, sweat pants, short skirts or blouses, and hats.

Provided that the dress code is written clearly, is not excessive or onerous, is applied in a consistent fashion, and does not obviously discriminate on the basis of race, sex, religion, and perhaps ethnicity, the code is constitutionaland does not violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1965.

A dress code that discriminated on the basis of gender would be struck down. However, dress codes that are consistent with social customs can be upheld. Thus, in Harper v. Blockbuster Entertainment (11th Cir., 1998), the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a rule requiring shorter haircuts for male employees.

This article was originally published in 2009. Henry F. Carey is Associate Professor of Political Science at Georgia State University.

Read this article:
Dress Codes | The First Amendment Encyclopedia

Roe v. Wade was decided per a right to privacy based on the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, but there is another, perhaps at least equally compelling, way to look at the abortion issue and that is through the lens of the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

The establishment clause first asserts freedom from state religion or theocracy. This is a consequence of our Enlightenment heritage opposition to feudal state-imposed religion. The establishment clause only secondarily asserts freedom of religion, setting it within the demarcations of constitutional rejection or denial of state religion.

But the abortion question is also an Enlightenment question of self-determination versus determination of self by other. In this case, that other, the prohibitor of abortion, would be a religious form of the state; the state having been captured, unconstitutionally, by a theocracy. Legal limitation, suppression or criminalization of abortion on religious grounds would smuggle in a theocratic state, one which adheres to one doctrine and excludes all others.

In the United States today, Roman Catholicism and Christian fundamentalism would legally institutionalize their anti-abortion doctrine, thus violating the First Amendment dictum that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. But Catholicism and Christian fundamentalists stake their anti-abortion claims on the existence of the soul at conception.

In religious contexts, ensoulment is thought to take place when the soul comes into the body.

In Catholicism the moment of ensoulment has doctrinally varied over time. About 150 years ago, the church taught that ensoulment occurred at quickening, the moment when the pregnant person could feel the fetus moving in their body. (In their first pregnancy, a person typically feels fetal movement at about 18-20 weeks.

If they have given birth at least once, they will typically feel movement around 15-17 weeks.)

The churchs contemporary view is that the soul enters at the moment of conception. This view is shared by Christian fundamentalism, which claims that personhood occurs at the moment of conception. Christian fundamentalists oppose abortion by claiming that fetuses (which they term the preborn, or unborn children) have souls. Along with the Roman Catholic church, these fundamentalists contend that the moment of conception is so singular because it is when human life, personhood and ensoulment occur.

Before the Vatican reversed course on the subject of Limbo in 2007, Catholics believed a soul may not be admitted to heaven unless its body was baptized. Some Catholics may still believe that since fetuses are not baptized, their souls may not go straight to heaven but must hang around in Limbo, which is itself a speculative concept. For some Catholics, abortion causes there to be lost and wandering souls.

Christian fundamentalists claim that aborted fetuses, which they term unborn or preborn children, go straight to heaven because they are innocent and know nothing of original sin and are too young to be saved.

Other religions have different takes on the ensoulment question. The Mormon churchs position is that human beings have 3 stages of life: Pre-existence as spirit children, a time of probation on earth, Eternal life with the Heavenly Father. The Mormon church allows exceptions to its abortion ban due to pregnancy resulting from rape or incest, when the parents health is medically determined to be in serious jeopardy, or when it is medically determined that the fetus is so defective as not to be able to allow the baby to survive past birth.

In Judaism there is no fully developed theory of the timing or nature of ensoulment. This could be because Judaism does not include a strict separation of soul and body. However, the Talmud does speculate on when ensoulment might occur. But it appears that the Talmud dismisses [the ensoulment] question as both unanswerable and irrelevant to the abortion question.

Islam, meanwhile, traditionally did not hold that ensoulment occurred at conception. Currently, there are three views of when ensoulment occurs in Islam: at 120 days, at 40 days or when there is voluntary movement of the fetus ranging from the 12th to the 20th week of gestation.

For Hinduism and Buddhism, the eternal soul is ever being reborn unless and until Moksha or Nirvana is attained. Per Hindu doctrine, and similar to Catholic and Christian fundamentalist views, many Hindus believe that, The soul and the matter which form the fetus are joined together from conception. Still, in Hinduism, If a foetus is aborted, the soul within it suffers a major karmic setback and is deprived of the opportunities its potential human existence would have given it to earn good karma. So, this soul is then, returned immediately to the cycle of birth, death and rebirth.

The 14th Amendment tells us that constitutional rights may only be conferred on persons born or naturalized in the United States. At this point, modern science shows us that these persons must have been in the womb for at least 24 weeks, and they must be born. We must not substitute theocratic law for constitutional law.

Given this, legislation such as Alabamas outright abortion ban, (which has been delayed by litigation), or other restrictive ordinances recently passed in Texas, Oklahoma and Mississippi enshrine in law select religious views of the question, namely Catholic doctrine and Christian fundamentalist doctrine.

It may be said that such laws would create a specific state establishment of religion, (echoing the Christian nationalist mantra that the U.S. is a Christian country) and simultaneously prohibit to birthing people and people of other faiths or no faith at all the free exercise of their beliefs. As such, abortion bans are violations of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and must be struck down. Choice in abortion matters is about: 1.) freedom from state religion; 2.) self-determination, not determination of self by other and 3.) freedom of religion.

Denial of abortion exemplifies theocratic or reactionary forces domination of the state. The same reactionary state control used to force birth could also be exercised to prohibit pregnancies among specific categories or groups of people. This has already occurred in U.S. history with respect to the sterilization of the feeble-minded, and more recently sterilization of Puerto Rican women.

White supremacist and anti-Semitic Great Replacement ideology (in a word: fascism) claims that a declining birth rate of white Americans, coupled with the increased fertility rate of people of color and increased immigration, heralds their eclipse as the majority group in our country. Actually, fertility rates for all major racial/ethnic groups in the U.S. have fallen since 1990 by different amounts. Data from 2019 showed lower total fertility rates for non-Hispanic white women and Asian women than for African American women and Latinas. Still, it is demographically predicted that the U.S. will become majority non-white somewhere between 2040-2050. In this view, abortion bans are not only a theocratic strategy; they are also a strategy for preserving the white majority.

Its a strategy weve seen used by fascists before. A memorandum to SS Officer Adolf Eichmann from Nazi-occupied Poznan, Poland, noted that all the Jewish women, from whom one could still expect children, should be sterilized so that the Jewish problem may actually be solved completely with this generation. Simultaneous with the sterilization of Jewish women, German women were awarded the Mothers Cross for having four or more children for the Third Reich.

Ultimately, what the First Amendment argument affords is not just a defense against opposition to abortion and forced sterilization, but a fresh look at adjudication of questions pertaining to religious bans on other intimate matters, such as contraception use, when viewed as attempted theocratic intrusions within our society.

More here:
The First Amendment Could Provide a Fresh Legal Approach to Defending Abortion - Truthout

When Amber Heard published an op-ed in the Washington Post referring to herself as a public figure representing domestic abuse, Johnny Depp, her ex-husband, sued her for defamation. Not the Post.

That distinction is possibly one reason why Depp won his lawsuit, legal experts say.

Winning a defamation lawsuit in the United States is difficult, thanks to the actual malice standard established by the 1964 Supreme Court ruling in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. To win a defamation case against a public figure, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant knowingly published a false statement or that they published a false statement with reckless disregard of the truth.

Depp had previously lost a libel suit brought in England against the News Group Newspapers, when a judge found that a 2018 article by The Sun that called Depp a wife beater was not defamatory. Though it is generally easier to win a defamation lawsuit in England than in the U.S., the judge in that case found 12 instances out of 14 in which Depp had allegedly assaulted Heard to be substantially true.

Yet on June 1, a jury of five men and two women found that Heard had defamed Depp on three counts based on her op-ed in The Washington Post, awarding Depp $10.35 million in damages. (They also found that Depps former lawyer Adam Waldman had defamed Heard when he called Heards allegations of abuse a hoax and awarded her $2 million in damages.)

My initial reaction was, This is why you dont want to be in front of a jury litigating a defamation case many times, said Roy Gutterman, director of the Newhouse Schools Tully Center for Free Speech at Syracuse University. I disagree with the verdict in many ways because Im not sure it follows the letter of defamation law entirely.

Gutterman, who followed the trial closely and is an expert in communications law and the First Amendment, said he wasnt sure the evidence presented had established falsity or that Depp had suffered any reputational damage linked directly to the op-ed. Other legal experts also said they were surprised the jury found that Heard had met the actual malice standard.

Generally speaking, most public figure plaintiffs lose when they are suing for defamation because it is almost impossible to prove or to convince in clarity the presence of actual malice, said Kyu Ho Youm, a media law expert who serves as the Jonathan Marshall First Amendment Chair at the University of Oregon School of Journalism and Communication.

Several experts attributed Depps win to the fact that the trial was decided by a jury, not a judge. Juries can be a little less dispassionate, said media attorney Leslie Machado, and may be swayed by what they see in court, whereas a judge may focus more on the facts and the law. Though jurors were instructed not to read about the case, they were not sequestered, and some experts have pointed out that jurors may have inadvertently been exposed to one of the countless memes about the trial on social media.

Washington and Lee University journalism professor Toni Locy, who has spent 25 years covering courts, said that it seemed to her that the jury just liked Depp better: (Heard) wound up with the short end of the stick there because of the sexism in our society, and he got the benefit of the doubt.

If The Washington Post had been the defendant, the trial may have ended differently, experts said. The lawsuit would have come across as an attack on the freedom of the press a freedom enshrined in the First Amendment and other media outlets likely would have come to the Posts defense. It would also be more difficult to convince a jury that a media company had acted recklessly since reputable news organizations do not knowingly print falsehoods.

Strategically, it was pretty smart of Depp not to sue The Washington Post, Gutterman said. If The Washington Post was the defendant, this would have been a First Amendment, free press issue, as opposed to this private domestic dispute between two warring former spouses.

Because the lawsuit was between two private individuals, theres not much media organizations need to be concerned about, said Joel Kaplan, who teaches media law and is the associate dean of Newhouse School at Syracuse Universitys office of graduate programs. At most, the verdict may indicate that libel has now become the weapon of choice for public figures. Kaplan said it remains difficult to prove that media publications have demonstrated actual malice pointing to the recent verdict in Sarah Palins defamation lawsuit against The New York Times. In that case, both the judge and the jury ruled in the Times favor.

Locy agreed, saying that while she does not think the case necessarily has implications for journalists, it does have implications for how seriously women who are victims of domestic violence are taken by the public.

If there is a danger, it is that people who behave badly and get called out for it may feel emboldened to try to enlist a jury to vindicate themselves (and) to engage in revisionist history of their lives and sort of embellish or polish or clean up their reputation, Locy said.

The case does not set any legal precedents, which can only be set by appellate courts. But some experts said the case may serve as a blueprint for other people who have been accused of misconduct. Depps friend, musician Marilyn Manson, has already sued actor Evan Rachel Wood for defamation based on comments she had made alleging that he repeatedly and violently abused her while they were dating.

Advocates for victims of domestic abuse and sexual violence have warned that the Depp v. Heard trial could make them more hesitant to talk about their experiences. That chilling effect could also extend to victims willingness to serve as sources for journalists, Gutterman said. One psychologist told Rolling Stone that she has already heard from hundreds of survivors wanting to withdraw from court cases or retract statements they had made to the press.

People may not only feel comfortable suing their accusers, but also media outlets in which those accusations appear.

In this country, there are large segments that think that the press is biased, that the press doesnt do a good job, Machado said. I wonder if going forward, you will have people saying, Im willing to take on the media.

Kyle Rittenhouse, who shot and killed two men and injured a third at a protest in Kenosha, Wisconsin, in 2020, has already tweeted that the Depp v. Heard trial is fueling him. Earlier this year, he set up an initiative called The Media Accountability Project to fundraise money to hold the worst offenders in our activist media accountable in court, according to the projects website.

Problems could arise if a future defamation suit against a media organization rises through the courts and appears before the Supreme Court, Youm said. At that point, the court would have a chance to review the actual malice standard set in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan.

Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch have already said the court should revisit that case. In a 2021 dissent, Thomas wrote, The lack of historical support for this Courts actual malice requirement is reason enough to take a second look at the Courts doctrine. Our reconsideration is all the more needed because of the doctrines real-world effects.

In some ways, the Depp v. Heard defamation case was not about uncovering the truth, but rather a grudge match, said Youm, who plans to mention the case in a future edition of his textbook for journalism students, Communication and the Law. Over the past several weeks, the trial has evolved into a public spectacle, one that has seen numerous attacks on Heard and her credibility. Though it doesnt set precedent, the case is notable in showing that the actual malice standard can be overcome, Youm said.

From a First Amendment perspective, the jury verdict and this particular defamation case illustrate a very troubling and disturbing development in which the defendant-friendly Sullivan rule I am talking about the actual malice rule is now not necessarily as unassailable as it was in the past, Youm said.

Last week, Heards lawyer Elaine Charlson Bredehoft said they plan to appeal the verdict. Depps lawyer Benjamin Chew indicated on Thursday that Depp may waive the damages if Heard drops her appeal. If Heard does appeal, experts are split on her chances of success. Though Kaplan said he expected the decision to be overturned on appeal, he acknowledged that Heard may face difficulty since this was a private defamation case. Locy pointed out that courts in Virginia, where the lawsuit was filed, can be more conservative and may be sympathetic to Depp.

Its tough to make a prediction. If I was making a prediction eight weeks ago, I would have said that theres no way Johnny Depp is going to win at trial, Gutterman said. I think there are certain elements under the First Amendment and certain elements under the body of defamation law that could be strong for Amber Heards appeal, but well see how they frame it.

Go here to see the original:
What does the Depp v. Heard verdict mean for the media? It's hard to say. - Poynter

In August of 2021, approximately eight East Cleveland Police Department officers descended on the home of William Fambrough. His alleged infraction: a parking violation.

Or so they said. But Fambrough's story is much more insidious than that. It involves some serious alleged First Amendment transgressionscarried out by the government, not Fambrough.

The 74-year-old East Cleveland man had the audacity last year to promote a challenger to Brandon L. King, East Cleveland's mayor. Fambrough used his step vansomething he'd employed many times during the course of his long-running political advocacyto instead campaign for Juanita Gowdy, an East Cleveland city councilor who had a reputation for criticizing both King and law enforcement. Fambrough's media company produced advertisements for Gowdy, and he displayed Gowdy's likeness on his van while driving around playing recorded endorsements from East Clevelanders.

That didn't sit well with police, who began leveraging obscure municipal ordinances to criminalize Fambrough's behavior and paralyze Gowdy's campaign. Their visit to his home in August of last year was not their first, as they repeatedly harassed him for the crime of parking his van on the street. They ultimately towed the vehicle and caused thousands of dollars in damage in the process, kneecapping his ability to promote Gowdy's candidacy in the final stretch of the primary.

That ordinancewhich prohibits parking "a truck, commercial tractor, trailer, semi-trailer, a motor home or recreational vehicle" in a driveway or on a residential roadis almost never used, if ever. Between January 2016 and May 2022, the city hadn't enforced it once, according to a records request detailed in a civil rights lawsuit filed this week by Fambrough in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.

Yet no one could have made that more clear than the cops who initiated the tow and subsequent property destruction, as they turned a blind eye to a van violating the same ordinance about one or two houses down. They also cited Fambrough for "noise pollution," despite that he'd obtained a permit from East Cleveland's own police department and that the Supreme Court has ruled that the use of sound trucks is protected under the First Amendment.

Prior to Fambrough's court appearance, Assistant Law Director Heather McCollough, who serves as both prosecutor for East Cleveland and counsel for Mayor King, also said the quiet part out loud. After citing that Fambrough had "made complaints about the police department," filed "public records requests," and asked about election ordinances, McCollough told Fambrough's attorney that Fambrough needed to "stand down" if he hoped to achieve any sort of peaceful resolution.

He pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor and was told that such an ending may not come to him again if he did not "mind his own business."

The problem for McCollough is that none of the complaints she outlined are remotely criminal. On the contrary, they are the epitome of First Amendment-protected speech, allowing citizens to hold the government accountable without fear of reprisal for doing just that.

Such is the main thrust behind Fambrough's lawsuit, filed against the City of East Cleveland, King, McCollough, Chief of Police Scott Gardner, Law Director Willa Hemmons, Captain Kenneth Lundy, and Officers Mark Allen, Andrew Majercik, William Nevels, and Kyle Wood.

"It's actually incredibly and tragically common for governments to retaliate against citizens' political speech or for criticizing the government or the police," says Ben Field, an attorney with the Institute for Justice, the public interest law firm representing Fambrough. "Every single governmentwhether it's federal, state, or localjust has so many laws on the books that it's always possible to point to somebody and say, 'Well, you broke one of them,' and figure out what that law is after the fact. If governments are allowed to do that, then nobody's rights are safe."

Such was the case with Jerry Rogers Jr.,who was arrested in Louisiana for violating "14:00000"a crime that doesn't existafter police in St. Tammany Parish grew furious that he had criticized their failure to solve a local murder.

"I think that most people have the ideathat the First Amendment has never been more robust. And when it comes to governments actually writing down laws to restrict speech, that's true," adds Field. "But if the government doesn't write down a law but instead pre-textually uses a law to target speech it doesn't like, the protections are actually much, much weaker."

That's particularly relevant to East Cleveland when considering the city's high crime rate and short-staffed police department. It is the government's job to protect people from those who violate their rightsnot to waste their limited resources to protect the government from the people. Yet whether or not Fambrough will even get the chance to state his case before a jury will hinge on him overcoming a slew of immunity doctrines that protect the state from having to provide recourse when it violates someone's constitutional rights.

But this isn't just about Fambrough, and it's not just about East Cleveland. "Even if most people don't drive sound trucks around to support candidates," says Field, "the same thing that happened to William can happen to anybody."

The rest is here:
He Was Targeted by Police for His Political Speech. Now, He's Suing. - Reason

Event Announcements

Monday, June 13, 2022 at 10:00 a.m. ET: The House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol will hold the second in its series of hearings discussing former President Trumps election fraud claims and how they are related to the Capitol attack. The select committee will hear testimony from two panels. The first panel will include former Fox news political director Chris Stirewalt. Former Trump campaign manager Bill Stepien was also scheduled to speak on the first panel, but will not testify due to a family emergency. The second panel will feature election lawyer Ben Ginsberg, former U.S. Attorney BJay Pak, and former Philadelphia City Commissioner Al Schmidt.

Monday, June 13, 2022 at 10:30 a.m. ET: Lawfare and the Brookings Institution will host an event to discuss the Special Immigrant Visa program, ongoing resettlement issues for Afghan evacuees, and Allies, Lawfares new narrative podcast series on the matter. The event will feature opening remarks from Benjamin Wittes, editor-in-chief of Lawfare, followed by a panel discussion. Panelists include: Bryce Klehm, associate editor of Lawfare; Shala Gafary, managing attorney of Project-Afghan Legal Assistance at Humans Rights First; Matt Zeller, senior adviser at Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America; and Steven M. Miska, executive director of First Amendment Voice.

Monday, June 13, 2022 at 2:00 p.m. ET: The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) will host a panel discussion concerning the impacts of the coronavirus pandemic, war in eastern Europe, and increase in energy prices on the European economy. Panelists include: Nathan Sheets, global chief economist at Citibank; Desmond Lachman, senior fellow at AEI; Carlo Cottarelli, director of the Osservatorio sui Conti Pubblici Italiani at LUniversit Cattolica; and Paolo Mauro, deputy director of the Fiscal Affairs Department within the International Monetary Fund.

Tuesday, June 14, 2022 at 10:30 a.m. ET: The Atlantic Council will host its seventh annual central and eastern European energy security conference. The event will focus on promoting transatlantic cooperation and energy diversification in central and eastern Europe to weaken the influence of Russian oil and gas in the region. The event will feature remarks from a range of experts and leaders in government and the private sector.

Tuesday, June 14, 2022 at 10:30 a.m. ET: AEI will host a panel discussion on efforts by American and European politicians to limit Chinese economic influence on western economies. Panelists include: Derek Scissors, senior fellow at AEI; Rep. Darin LaHood of Illinois; Adolfo Urso, chairman of the Italian Parliament Intelligence Committee; and James Palmer, deputy editor at Foreign Policy.

Tuesday, June 14, 2022 at 4:00 p.m. ET: The Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies at Stanford University will host a talk about Indian military strategy in the Kargil War. . The event will feature the remarks fromArzan Tarapore, South Asia research scholar at Stanford University's Asia-Pacific Research Center.

Wednesday, June 15, 2022 at 12:30 p.m. ET: The Atlantic Council will host an event to launch a new report on cybersecurity and central bank digital currencies from its GeoEconomics Center. The event will include a panel discussion with Giulia Fanti, nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council; Neha Narula, director of theDigital Currency Initiative at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Media Lab; and Michael Mosier, former acting director of the U.S. Treasurys Financial Crimes Enforcement Network.

Thursday, June 16, 2022 at 9:30 a.m. ET: The Atlantic Council will host an event to examine the partnership between European Union and African Union leaders following the EU-AU Summit and how it connects to EU-U.S. cooperation in Africa. The event will feature remarks from a range of experts and leaders in government.

Employment Announcements (More details on the Job Board)

Director, Federal Government Affairs, R Street Institute

Program Associate and Special Assistant to the Executive Director, Reiss Center on Law and Security and NYU Center for Cybersecurity

Postdoc Research Position in Cybersecurity Policy, Tufts University

Program Assistant, National Security Institute, Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University

Program Associate, National Security Institute, Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University

Summer Research Assistant, National Security Institute

Call for Papers, American Journal of International Law

Deputy Director, Security & Surveillance Project, Center for Democracy and Technology

Senior Associate, Center on Privacy & Technology at Georgetown Law

Program Coordinator, Asia Program, The German Marshall Fund

External Affairs Officer, Digital Innovation Democracy Initiative, The German Marshall Fund

Request for Resumes, Department of Defense Office of the General Counsel

Link:
The Week That Will Be - Lawfare - Lawfare