#referendum is how we update our constitution to bring it in line with our changing society

[mainnalle]

I'M SICK OF MY FELLOW AUSTRALIAN'S NOISE!

It's not political, it's CONSTITUTIONAL!!!

[wesleyv21-blog]

Nearing the end of week one!

Hello, y’all!

Just a disclaimer: writing and speaking in English is already a little difficult, so if I say weird stuff just ignore it lol. Somehow, it’s already felt like ages since I landed; yet at the same time, in the words of a man I had the honor of talking to today, ya no he aterrizado; todavía estoy en las nubes. Hay mucho para contar y voy a empezar con martes.

On Tuesday, we spent our last day in the town of Tababela. After going through various logistical things, a group of us hit the town around early evening/late afternoon to this little pizzeria catered for tourists. It was called Chester’s (after the owner’s beagle), and the menu was even in English lol. It opened not long after the new international airport did, which explains its presence. Needless to say it was a blast, and I can definitely say I will miss the tranquility, hot sun that made you feel at ease with the world, and the hospitality of the inhabitants of Tababela.

We touched briefly on a problem that seems rampant across the so-called Global South. The colonial legacy has such a stranglehold still on the population yet at the same time has facilitated the rise of a new elite who keeps their pockets lined with foreign cash while doing nothing to alleviate social injustices in their own country. This is a problem that will need to be problematized further. También, I had some insightful interchanges with some of the other students about our privilege to even be in this country. We have so much wealth (broadly defined) that has put the world at our fingertips. It wasn’t a matter of if I could study abroad; it was where. I believe this is so telling. Then our academic director, Faba, nailed it on the head: can you imagine a group of Ecuadorian students romping through the states asking random people questions in the name of “research?” Of course not! It would be ludicrous. Yet that is exactly what we would do the next day.

On Wednesday, we were given instructions on how to get to the bus stop in Tababela and to proceed there after breakfast para coger el autobús hacia un pueblo cercano que nos asignaron nuestros profes. My group’s destination was Pifo, a little town to the south of Tababela and only about a 40-minute bus ride east of downtown Quito. When we arrived, we were tasked with finding the city square, observing all we could about it, going up to random strangers to ask them about the town, find a place to eat lunch, and navigate the bus system once again to make it to our hotel in Quito. It was quite the experience. That I lived to tell about it I think demonstrates just how well I and my fellow students can survive in a Spanish-speaking country. What we found out was that Pifo seems to be a “just-passing-through” kind of town, as many of the merchants would only come into Pifo to sell their wares even though they didn’t live there. I talked with a man who was on his way home to Ambato from the airport. He and I ended up having a fantastic conversation about politics and current issues facing Ecuador. Some of the big ones are a massive amount of foreign debt, a national referendum that might amend the Constitution along 7 lines which takes place this Sunday, and the ages-old dilemma of capitalistic investment vs. conserving the environment. Then, we met this other very nice man who ended up problematizing our notion of “poverty.” He told us that too many foreigners come to Ecuador with their preconceived notions of what poverty is when, he said, the reality is that Ecuadorians are rich beyond compare in biodiversity and natural beauty. Ecuador is, in fact, the most biodiverse country per square kilometer or meter or something like that lol in the world. Yasuní National Park out east is actually the single most biodiverse spot in the world. While in a restaurant for lunch, we broke a plate accidentally and ended up having to pay for it lol. Once we had all the info we needed, we boarded the bus for Quito.

Quito is quite unlike any city I’ve ever seen. It’s long and narrow, with the towering Pichincha volcano to the west and the just immense Cotopaxi volcano to the south. It’s crowded, loud, tall, and there’s always something going on. Our taxi from the bus station took almost as long as our bus ride into the city, yet the distance separating our hotel from the bus stop was less than 2 miles. At night, after we got settled, the program directors invited some local Ecuadorian university students to come share their perspectives with us in a panel format; then, we had the chance to talk with them personally. Two stand out most in my mind. One, a 26-year-old architecture students with a wife and child, hailed from a part indigenous, Kichwa-speaking family. His hair was braided in a long braid that reached his waist. When asked about it, he told us that for him, wearing his hair this way was an act of resistance. For too long, the mestizo-dominated society (mixed European and indigenous Andean and Amazonian heritages) have marginalized darker-skinned, indigenous, and afrodescendant communities. For this student, wearing his hair in the traditional way handed down to him from his grandfather was a giant middle finger to this oppressive regime. And he is teaching his son to do the same. He related how one day, his son was made fun of for his long, girlish-looking hair. His son responded that no, he was not a girl, instead he was a proud indigenous boy whose long hair enabled him to make contact with the universe. Apparently the boys who made fun of him went home to their families and expressed jealousy over this boy’s self-confidence and “cool” hair. Isn’t that awesome? This man’s resistance was inspiring for me, even though I come from such a different context.

Similarly, there was a young woman studying sociology. She had quite the structural lens and was very articulate in diagnosing some of Ecuador’s problems in terms of oppressive social structures. When asked about the topic of abortion, she quickly moved onto more enabling aspects of Ecuadorian patriarchy that make abortion so controversial and fatal in many cases. In her perspective, the lack of sexual education in Ecuador is a dire problem that needs to be addressed. This country has the highest rate of teenage pregnancy in all of Latin America, and she thinks that a big part of this is the lack of sexual education. But what is there to do in a country dominated by both machismo and marianismo and a conservative Catholic church? In her view, structural changes are urgently needed. It was refreshing talking with someone like her, because even though we are from different contexts, her analysis reveals that patriarchy might operate similarly in different places. Needless to say we got along quite well. After the students left, we all went out to the Plaza Foch, a well-known hotspot for Quiteño youth due to the numerous bars and clubs. I ended up with a group that settled on this little outdoor area with restaurant stalls all selling food and drinks. They had cards and board games in a clear marketing strategy aimed at foreigners lol. I ended up talking with this man who is a Venezuelan refugee. He had come very recently to escape what is a state meltdown in Venezuela. Although he has multiple degrees, he cannot work as that for which he is trained because he doesn’t have enough money to hurry along his application for work papers or citizenship if he wants it. He told me that you have to have money in order to do these things efficiently, and right now he doesn’t have it. So, he works 2 jobs day and night and has no time to even enjoy the money he’s earning. From his perspective, Ecuadorian society was much more reserved than Venezuelan; apparently in Venezuela, people chat and gossip and are much friendlier with each other. For him, Ecuadorians weren’t like that. He also hated the heat and eventually wants to move somewhere colder lol. He was in awe when I told him how cold New England is!

Something I’ve been struggling with today is where I fit in the matrix of Ecuadorian society. Being a white male westerner, I come to Ecuador with two sets of stereotypes attached to me. The first is that I’m wealthy, and as such I represent the legacy of colonialism, the crippling external debt Ecuador owes to many other countries, the sharp divide in material wealth between the global north and south, and the ongoing phenomenon of cultural exportation from the United States. At the same time, I am a target for robberies because of my perceived wealth. I am also just one more foreigner in this country; as such, I am also invisible, I take up hardly any space, I cannot take part in the political discourse of this country, and I have been told to minimize myself as much as possible to reduce the risk of being attacked. I feel that all this cultural baggage I bring with me is contradicting. I don’t quite know where I fit in the order of things, and I have had the privilege of not having to know this for most of my life. In the U.S., my presence and my body are buoyed by just about every social structure we have. Here in Ecuador, I may retain many of those privilege, yet they have been recast to include some feelings of marginalization I have never before experienced. I do not yet know how to reconcile this. But I tell you that I am constantly aware of others staring me down as I pass them on the street. I know that my every action has hundreds of possible witnesses. It is a disconcerting feeling; I feel like an alien. And lol that’s because I am. Yet how do I derive meaning from this knowing that at the same time, I am perhaps the poster child of the global north? I’ll keep you updated on this, because I feel it to be right at the heart of why I’m here in the first place.

Just a note on the pictures below. The first is a breathtaking shot of Cotopaxi, which rises over 19,000 feet above sea level! It’s one of the highest active volcanoes in the world. The second is the volcano of Pichincha, which demarcates the western edge of Quito. The volcanic peak is the one like dead center with the light-ish streak running down it. The last is a picture from a little bridge in La Carolina park in downtown Quito. I will definitely be coming here to hang out and enjoy the little nature escape in the middle of the city!

[technicalsolutions88]

The UK government is considering changes to the law that would require online political campaign material to carry labels disclosing who is promoting and funding the messaging.

The proposal, which is being put through a public consultation until November, follows years of warnings over the lack of regulation around online political ads.

The government said the measures would mean voters get the same transparency from online campaign material as they do from leaflets posted through their letterbox.

A variety of platforms would be covered, per the current proposal, including social media and video sharing apps, general websites and apps, online ads, search engines, some forms of email, digital streaming services and podcasts.

“There is growing concern about the transparency of the sources of political campaigning online, which is starting to have a negative impact on trust and confidence in our elections and democracy,” the minister for the constitution & devolution, Chloe Smith, writes. “The Government committed in its last manifesto to protect the integrity of our democracy. That is why this Government will refresh our election laws so that citizens are empowered to make informed decisions in relation to election material online.”

Commenting in a press statement, she added: “People want to engage with politics online. That’s where campaigners connect with voters and is why, ahead of elections, almost half of political advertising budgets are now spent on digital content and activity. But people want to know who is talking. Voters value transparency, so we must ensure that there are clear rules to help them see who is behind campaign content online.

“The measures we have outlined today are a big step forward towards making UK politics even more transparent and would lead to one of the most comprehensive set of regulations operating in the world today.”

The government is calling for digital imprints to apply to all types of campaign content, regardless of the country it is being promoted from, and across a variety of digital platforms.

The requirement for imprints would also apply all year round, not only during election or referenda periods.

Imprints would be required to be displayed as part of the digital content — or where that’s not possible located in an “accessible alternative location linked to the material”, per the proposal.

The government argues that the requirement for digital imprints on political campaign material will help existing regulators better monitor who is promoting election material and enforce spending rules.

The UK’s 2016 EU referendum vote was mired by the Election Commission’s finding, after the fact of Brexit, of improper spending by the official Vote Leave campaign. The campaign channeled money to a Canadian data firm, AggregateIQ, to use for microtargeting political advertising on Facebook’s platform, via undeclared joint working with another Brexit campaign, BeLeave.

As we said at the time, more stringent regulations and transparency mechanisms were needed to prevent powerful social media platforms from quietly absorbing politically motivated money and messaging without recognizing any responsibility to disclose the transactions, let alone carry out due diligence on who or what may be funding the political spending.

But whether the government’s current proposal goes far enough in updating regulations looks questionable.

UK parliamentarians on the DCMS committee have been calling for “urgent action” to update national election laws for years — warning in a report back in 2018 that democratic integrity and trust in democratic processes are at risk from rampant data-fuelled digital manipulation.

Damian Collins, who was chair of the DCMS committee during a multi-month investigation into the impact of online disinformation, criticized the government for continued delay in taking action — also attacking the proposals for not going far enough.

“This is important but there have already been government consultations and multiple inquiries which have recommended transparency for who is running political ads online. We should legislate to make this happen now,” he said via Twitter, in response to news of the consultation.

“We need to go much further to protect our elections: Clamp down on deepfakes, foreign donation loopholes, and generally bring in line political ads with the standards of the rest of ad-land,” he added.

Political broadcasts on UK television and radio are very heavily regulated — with stringent limits placed on the length and frequency of such broadcasts. Paid political ads simply aren’t permitted there. But no such limits are being proposed for online political ads, where it’s trivially easy and cheap to deploy glossy video ads targeted at specific, niche groups of voters.

Meanwhile, some tech firms have voluntarily deleted this type of advertising from their platforms in response to concerns about how it can be used to hijack, manipulate and skew genuine democratic debate.

Last year some of Facebook’s own employees raised public concerns that its advanced targeting and behavioral tracking tools make it “hard for people in the electorate to participate in the public scrutiny that we’re saying comes along with political speech”, as congressman David Cicilline noted during the third meeting of the International Grand Committee on Disinformation.

Given all that, the UK government’s proposal for digital imprints on political ads looks like an enabling framework for digital campaigning — and one that risks glossing over the democratic threat inherent in allowing voters to be treated as just so many online consumers to be profiled and targeted in the same way as Internet users are spied upon to sell a holiday, fitness gear or a particular shampoo brand.

In 2018 the UK’s data watchdog called for an ethical pause on behavioral targeting of voters. In a report entitled Democracy Disrupted? Personal information and political influence, the regulator warned: “Without a high level of transparency – and therefore trust amongst citizens that their data is being used appropriately – we are at risk of developing a system of voter surveillance by default. This could have a damaging long-term effect on the fabric of our democracy and political life.”

Its warnings then fell on deaf ears — with the Conservative party going on to use some very similar looking data-grabbing campaign techniques for last year’s general election as were deployed to target voters during the Brexit referendum. (Vote Leave’s campaign director, Dominic Cummings, is now PM Boris Johnson’s chief advisor.) So, tl;dr, the UK’s governing party is fully in bed with big data for election campaigns.

(Not to mention flush with Russian money, per a more recent UK parliamentary committee report, which appears to have encouraged ministers to look the other way vis-a-vis democratic threats posed by foreign-funded online disOps.)

In a statement accompanying the government’s press release, Facebook’s head of UK public policy, Rebecca Stimson, sounded pleased with the government’s enabling approach to regulating political ads — taking the opportunity to promote steps it’s taken toward what she couched as “online transparency” by highlighting a platform requirement, introduced in the wake of the Brexit Facebook ad scandal, which means political ads on Facebook need to be badged with a ‘paid for by’ disclaimer (and retained in an ad archive for a set number of years).

“We look forward to further engaging with the government on this important consultation,” she added.

The UK proposal suggests two tests for determining when digital content should require an imprint: Either where it’s “intended to achieve the electoral success of registered political parties and candidates, or the material relates to a referendum”; or where paid and organic digital content is being promoted by either: Registered political parties, registered third party campaigners, candidates, holders of elected office and registered referendum campaigners.

For other types of campaigners the digital imprint requirement will only apply to paid digital content (i.e. ads). “Imprint rules will… not apply to unregistered campaigners that are not paying to promote content, so that members of the public remain able to exercise their right to free speech,” the government notes on that.

It looks as if the latter will open up a loophole for unofficial campaign content to slip under the imprint radar — i.e. if manufactured opinion content can be passed off as ‘individual’ speech. In much the same way as Russia was able to pass off disinformation targeting the US election by seeding it through a network of fake profiles controlled by its bot agents.

Platforms remain terrible at identifying and labelling bots, and continue to be allowed to choose their own adventure when it comes to making fake account disclosures. So dark political messaging that’s natively hidden from regulatory oversight will continue to flourish without far closer regulation of these tech giants.

from Social – TechCrunch https://ift.tt/30Nrvn2 Original Content From: https://techcrunch.com

[sheminecrafts]

UK eyeing disclosure labels for online political campaigning

The UK government is considering changes to the law that would require online political campaign material to carry labels disclosing who is promoting and funding the messaging.

The proposal, which is being put through a public consultation until November, follows years of warnings over the lack of regulation around online political ads.

The government said the measures would mean voters get the same transparency from online campaign material as they do from leaflets posted through their letterbox.

A variety of platforms would be covered, per the current proposal, including social media and video sharing apps, general websites and apps, online ads, search engines, some forms of email, digital streaming services and podcasts.

“There is growing concern about the transparency of the sources of political campaigning online, which is starting to have a negative impact on trust and confidence in our elections and democracy,” the minister for the constitution & devolution, Chloe Smith, writes. “The Government committed in its last manifesto to protect the integrity of our democracy. That is why this Government will refresh our election laws so that citizens are empowered to make informed decisions in relation to election material online.”

Commenting in a press statement, she added: “People want to engage with politics online. That’s where campaigners connect with voters and is why, ahead of elections, almost half of political advertising budgets are now spent on digital content and activity. But people want to know who is talking. Voters value transparency, so we must ensure that there are clear rules to help them see who is behind campaign content online.

“The measures we have outlined today are a big step forward towards making UK politics even more transparent and would lead to one of the most comprehensive set of regulations operating in the world today.”

The government is calling for digital imprints to apply to all types of campaign content, regardless of the country it is being promoted from, and across a variety of digital platforms.

The requirement for imprints would also apply all year round, not only during election or referenda periods.

Imprints would be required to be displayed as part of the digital content — or where that’s not possible located in an “accessible alternative location linked to the material”, per the proposal.

The government argues that the requirement for digital imprints on political campaign material will help existing regulators better monitor who is promoting election material and enforce spending rules.

The UK’s 2016 EU referendum vote was mired by the Election Commission’s finding, after the fact of Brexit, of improper spending by the official Vote Leave campaign. The campaign channeled money to a Canadian data firm, AggregateIQ, to use for microtargeting political advertising on Facebook’s platform, via undeclared joint working with another Brexit campaign, BeLeave.

As we said at the time, more stringent regulations and transparency mechanisms were needed to prevent powerful social media platforms from quietly absorbing politically motivated money and messaging without recognizing any responsibility to disclose the transactions, let alone carry out due diligence on who or what may be funding the political spending.

But whether the government’s current proposal goes far enough in updating regulations looks questionable.

UK parliamentarians on the DCMS committee have been calling for “urgent action” to update national election laws for years — warning in a report back in 2018 that democratic integrity and trust in democratic processes are at risk from rampant data-fuelled digital manipulation.

Damian Collins, who was chair of the DCMS committee during a multi-month investigation into the impact of online disinformation, criticized the government for continued delay in taking action — also attacking the proposals for not going far enough.

“This is important but there have already been government consultations and multiple inquiries which have recommended transparency for who is running political ads online. We should legislate to make this happen now,” he said via Twitter, in response to news of the consultation.

“We need to go much further to protect our elections: Clamp down on deepfakes, foreign donation loopholes, and generally bring in line political ads with the standards of the rest of ad-land,” he added.

Political broadcasts on UK television and radio are very heavily regulated — with stringent limits placed on the length and frequency of such broadcasts. Paid political ads simply aren’t permitted there. But no such limits are being proposed for online political ads, where it’s trivially easy and cheap to deploy glossy video ads targeted at specific, niche groups of voters.

Meanwhile, some tech firms have voluntarily deleted this type of advertising from their platforms in response to concerns about how it can be used to hijack, manipulate and skew genuine democratic debate.

Last year some of Facebook’s own employees raised public concerns that its advanced targeting and behavioral tracking tools make it “hard for people in the electorate to participate in the public scrutiny that we’re saying comes along with political speech”, as congressman David Cicilline noted during the third meeting of the International Grand Committee on Disinformation.

Given all that, the UK government’s proposal for digital imprints on political ads looks like an enabling framework for digital campaigning — and one that risks glossing over the democratic threat inherent in allowing voters to be treated as just so many online consumers to be profiled and targeted in the same way as Internet users are spied upon to sell a holiday, fitness gear or a particular shampoo brand.

In 2018 the UK’s data watchdog called for an ethical pause on behavioral targeting of voters. In a report entitled Democracy Disrupted? Personal information and political influence, the regulator warned: “Without a high level of transparency – and therefore trust amongst citizens that their data is being used appropriately – we are at risk of developing a system of voter surveillance by default. This could have a damaging long-term effect on the fabric of our democracy and political life.”

Its warnings then fell on deaf ears — with the Conservative party going on to use some very similar looking data-grabbing campaign techniques for last year’s general election as were deployed to target voters during the Brexit referendum. (Vote Leave’s campaign director, Dominic Cummings, is now PM Boris Johnson’s chief advisor.) So, tl;dr, the UK’s governing party is fully in bed with big data for election campaigns.

(Not to mention flush with Russian money, per a more recent UK parliamentary committee report, which appears to have encouraged ministers to look the other way vis-a-vis democratic threats posed by foreign-funded online disOps.)

In a statement accompanying the government’s press release, Facebook’s head of UK public policy, Rebecca Stimson, sounded pleased with the government’s enabling approach to regulating political ads — taking the opportunity to promote steps it’s taken toward what she couched as “online transparency” by highlighting a platform requirement, introduced in the wake of the Brexit Facebook ad scandal, which means political ads on Facebook need to be badged with a ‘paid for by’ disclaimer (and retained in an ad archive for a set number of years).

“We look forward to further engaging with the government on this important consultation,” she added.

The UK proposal suggests two tests for determining when digital content should require an imprint: Either where it’s “intended to achieve the electoral success of registered political parties and candidates, or the material relates to a referendum”; or where paid and organic digital content is being promoted by either: Registered political parties, registered third party campaigners, candidates, holders of elected office and registered referendum campaigners.

For other types of campaigners the digital imprint requirement will only apply to paid digital content (i.e. ads). “Imprint rules will… not apply to unregistered campaigners that are not paying to promote content, so that members of the public remain able to exercise their right to free speech,” the government notes on that.

It looks as if the latter will open up a loophole for unofficial campaign content to slip under the imprint radar — i.e. if manufactured opinion content can be passed off as ‘individual’ speech. In much the same way as Russia was able to pass off disinformation targeting the US election by seeding it through a network of fake profiles controlled by its bot agents.

Platforms remain terrible at identifying and labelling bots, and continue to be allowed to choose their own adventure when it comes to making fake account disclosures. So dark political messaging that’s natively hidden from regulatory oversight will continue to flourish without far closer regulation of these tech giants.

from iraidajzsmmwtv https://ift.tt/30Nrvn2 via IFTTT

[endenogatai]

UK eyeing disclosure labels for online political campaigning

The UK government is considering changes to the law that would require online political campaign material to carry labels disclosing who is promoting and funding the messaging.

The proposal, which is being put through a public consultation until November, follows years of warnings over the lack of regulation around online political ads.

The government said the measures would mean voters get the same transparency from online campaign material as they do from leaflets posted through their letterbox.

A variety of platforms would be covered, per the current proposal, including social media and video sharing apps, general websites and apps, online ads, search engines, some forms of email, digital streaming services and podcasts.

“There is growing concern about the transparency of the sources of political campaigning online, which is starting to have a negative impact on trust and confidence in our elections and democracy,” the minister for the constitution & devolution, Chloe Smith, writes. “The Government committed in its last manifesto to protect the integrity of our democracy. That is why this Government will refresh our election laws so that citizens are empowered to make informed decisions in relation to election material online.”

Commenting in a press statement, she added: “People want to engage with politics online. That’s where campaigners connect with voters and is why, ahead of elections, almost half of political advertising budgets are now spent on digital content and activity. But people want to know who is talking. Voters value transparency, so we must ensure that there are clear rules to help them see who is behind campaign content online.

“The measures we have outlined today are a big step forward towards making UK politics even more transparent and would lead to one of the most comprehensive set of regulations operating in the world today.”

The government is calling for digital imprints to apply to all types of campaign content, regardless of the country it is being promoted from, and across a variety of digital platforms.

The requirement for imprints would also apply all year round, not only during election or referenda periods.

Imprints would be required to be displayed as part of the digital content — or where that’s not possible located in an “accessible alternative location linked to the material”, per the proposal.

The government argues that the requirement for digital imprints on political campaign material will help existing regulators better monitor who is promoting election material and enforce spending rules.

The UK’s 2016 EU referendum vote was mired by the Election Commission’s finding, after the fact of Brexit, of improper spending by the official Vote Leave campaign. The campaign channeled money to a Canadian data firm, AggregateIQ, to use for microtargeting political advertising on Facebook’s platform, via undeclared joint working with another Brexit campaign, BeLeave.

As we said at the time, more stringent regulations and transparency mechanisms were needed to prevent powerful social media platforms from quietly absorbing politically motivated money and messaging without recognizing any responsibility to disclose the transactions, let alone carry out due diligence on who or what may be funding the political spending.

But whether the government’s current proposal goes far enough in updating regulations looks questionable.

UK parliamentarians on the DCMS committee have been calling for “urgent action” to update national election laws for years — warning in a report back in 2018 that democratic integrity and trust in democratic processes are at risk from rampant data-fuelled digital manipulation.

Damian Collins, who was chair of the DCMS committee during a multi-month investigation into the impact of online disinformation, criticized the government for continued delay in taking action — also attacking the proposals for not going far enough.

“This is important but there have already been government consultations and multiple inquiries which have recommended transparency for who is running political ads online. We should legislate to make this happen now,” he said via Twitter, in response to news of the consultation.

“We need to go much further to protect our elections: Clamp down on deepfakes, foreign donation loopholes, and generally bring in line political ads with the standards of the rest of ad-land,” he added.

Political broadcasts on UK television and radio are very heavily regulated — with stringent limits placed on the length and frequency of such broadcasts. Paid political ads simply aren’t permitted there. But no such limits are being proposed for online political ads, where it’s trivially easy and cheap to deploy glossy video ads targeted at specific, niche groups of voters.

Meanwhile, some tech firms have voluntarily deleted this type of advertising from their platforms in response to concerns about how it can be used to hijack, manipulate and skew genuine democratic debate.

Last year some of Facebook’s own employees raised public concerns that its advanced targeting and behavioral tracking tools make it “hard for people in the electorate to participate in the public scrutiny that we’re saying comes along with political speech”, as congressman David Cicilline noted during the third meeting of the International Grand Committee on Disinformation.

Given all that, the UK government’s proposal for digital imprints on political ads looks like an enabling framework for digital campaigning — and one that risks glossing over the democratic threat inherent in allowing voters to be treated as just so many online consumers to be profiled and targeted in the same way as Internet users are spied upon to sell a holiday, fitness gear or a particular shampoo brand.

In 2018 the UK’s data watchdog called for an ethical pause on behavioral targeting of voters. In a report entitled Democracy Disrupted? Personal information and political influence, the regulator warned: “Without a high level of transparency – and therefore trust amongst citizens that their data is being used appropriately – we are at risk of developing a system of voter surveillance by default. This could have a damaging long-term effect on the fabric of our democracy and political life.”

Its warnings then fell on deaf ears — with the Conservative party going on to use some very similar looking data-grabbing campaign techniques for last year’s general election as were deployed to target voters during the Brexit referendum. (Vote Leave’s campaign director, Dominic Cummings, is now PM Boris Johnson’s chief advisor.) So, tl;dr, the UK’s governing party is fully in bed with big data for election campaigns.

(Not to mention flush with Russian money, per a more recent UK parliamentary committee report, which appears to have encouraged ministers to look the other way vis-a-vis democratic threats posed by foreign-funded online disOps.)

In a statement accompanying the government’s press release, Facebook’s head of UK public policy, Rebecca Stimson, sounded pleased with the government’s enabling approach to regulating political ads — taking the opportunity to promote steps it’s taken toward what she couched as “online transparency” by highlighting a platform requirement, introduced in the wake of the Brexit Facebook ad scandal, which means political ads on Facebook need to be badged with a ‘paid for by’ disclaimer (and retained in an ad archive for a set number of years).

“We look forward to further engaging with the government on this important consultation,” she added.

The UK proposal suggests two tests for determining when digital content should require an imprint: Either where it’s “intended to achieve the electoral success of registered political parties and candidates, or the material relates to a referendum”; or where paid and organic digital content is being promoted by either: Registered political parties, registered third party campaigners, candidates, holders of elected office and registered referendum campaigners.

For other types of campaigners the digital imprint requirement will only apply to paid digital content (i.e. ads). “Imprint rules will… not apply to unregistered campaigners that are not paying to promote content, so that members of the public remain able to exercise their right to free speech,” the government notes on that.

It looks as if the latter will open up a loophole for unofficial campaign content to slip under the imprint radar — i.e. if manufactured opinion content can be passed off as ‘individual’ speech. In much the same way as Russia was able to pass off disinformation targeting the US election by seeding it through a network of fake profiles controlled by its bot agents.

Platforms remain terrible at identifying and labelling bots, and continue to be allowed to choose their own adventure when it comes to making fake account disclosures. So dark political messaging that’s natively hidden from regulatory oversight will continue to flourish without far closer regulation of these tech giants.

from RSSMix.com Mix ID 8204425 https://ift.tt/30Nrvn2 via IFTTT

[turneresq]

Writing about soccer litigation seems like a full-time job these days. Every time one case gets resolved (SaveTheCrew), another one pops up in its place (Chicago Fire). Some cases have gotten more coverage than others, but they’re all interesting in their own way. In the interests of getting everyone up to speed on the status of these issues, I’ve compiled a guide of sorts to all of the major (and not so major) lawsuits involving soccer in the United States. A couple of caveats: Some of these aren’t “lawsuits” per se, and I’m not going to be talking about petty crimes here, so you’re off the hook, Wayne Rooney.

THE HOLLYWOOD ENDING

SaveTheCrew (State of Ohio ex rel. Ohio Attorney General Mike Dewine, et al. v Precourt Sports Ventures, LLC, et al.,):

Plot: A rag-tag group of supporters team up with government forces to prevent a corporation from uprooting a team to a faraway city.

Synopsis: Sounds like a Hollywood movie, right? Okay, maybe Netflix or ESPN+. Anyway, this case was filed back in March 2018, after Anthony Precourt announced months earlier that he was exploring a relocation of the Columbus Crew to Austin. The litigation had several flashpoints, with Judge Brown granting the plaintiffs a big procedural victory, which led to an appeal by PSV and MLS (and stalled the case for about six weeks). PSV and MLS filed a motion to dismiss the case on constitutional grounds, which was argued in September. That motion was denied, but by then…

Plot Twist: In October 2018, nearly a year to the day Precourt made his announcement, we got word that a deal had been reached to keep the team in Columbus. Additionally, there was a stadium/soccer complex proposal to transform Maple and build a stadium downtown.

Status of case: A happy ending! The team is safely in Columbus, preparing for the 2019 season. The new ownership group, led by Pete Edwards and Jimmy and Dee Haslem has taken over. Anthony Precourt is gone (we’ll get to that later), and I’m sure hopefully forgotten in Columbus.

Epilogue: The lawsuit has been dismissed without prejudice by Columbus and Ohio officials. However, that does still allow them the opportunity to resurrect the case, should the need arise. Talking to a source, it won’t be dismissed with prejudice (meaning they can’t bring it back before the court) until they get proof from MLS that the ownership transfer has officially occurred (signatures on pages), which hasn’t happened as of this publishing. On the stadium front, things continue to progress smoothly, with a source telling me that multiple meetings have been held and documents are being prepared. Groundbreaking is expected in the summer of 2019.

BONUS: There don’t appear to be any lawsuits on the horizon against the stadium development, which is more than we can say elsewhere.

[UPDATE 12/30/19] The Crew have recently started construction on their new stadium, and the team’s future is assured. Well, as assured as anything can be with sports teams. Still need to get a copy of that lease agreement though.

MIAMI THRICE SIX:

(Bruce Matheson v. Miami (Overtown site); William Muir v. Miami Commissioners (Miami Freedom Park); David Winker v. Miami Commissioners (Miami Freedom Park)

I’ll say this for David Beckham: The only thing more impressive than his jawline (and soccer skill, and hair, and bank account), is his legal team. No matter how many suits are filed against them, they keep on winning. So taking these in chronological order:

Bruce Matheson v. Miami (Overtown site, filed 2017):

Matheson, a local Miami resident (and frequent litigant) filed a suit against the City of Miami (and Beckham later joined in) in July 2017, alleging that the city illegally sold the land to Beckham’s group without putting it out for bid. Unfortunately for Matheson, the judge dismissed the complaint upon Beckham and the City’s motion, finding there is statutory language which allows the sale without a bid process for large, unique projects which bring in business (such as sports stadiums). Also, the court found that if Matheson has complaints about the zoning process, he can raise them at a zoning hearing. Matheson then appealed…and lost again.

Status of case: Matheson is now in front of the Florida Supreme Court, trying to get them to hear his case. I’ve reviewed the filings and I don’t think he’ll have much more luck in front of the Supremes than he did at the lower court level. We should see a ruling in about a month.

[UPDATE 12/30/19]: Matheson’s petition to appeal was denied by the Florida Supreme Court, so he’s out of options. This case is now dead. 

Of course, Beckham doesn’t even want to build his stadium in Overtown anymore, and he’s trying to negotiate a lease on the Melreese Golf Course to build a stadium and surrounding development. Which leads us to…

William Muir v. Miami Commissioners (Miami Freedom Park; filed 2018)

Before David Beckham’s group could negotiate a lease with the Miami Commissioners, he had to win a referendum which would allow the Miami Charter to be amended to authorize a non-public bid sale of the land. Beckham and his partner Jorge Mas went before the Miami Commissioners and (after a couple of fits and starts), got the Commissioners to agree to put the proposed change to the City Charter to a referendum. As things go these days, a lawsuit was filed by local resident/attorney Douglas Muir, alleging the process by which the referendum was sent to the voters was invalid. What are the specific complaints?

The City didn’t follow the required procedure, and the whole process wasn’t transparent. The ballot language was insufficient and violates the law.

 The ballot language was insufficient and violates the law.

The ballot language that ended up being approved by voters.

Unfortunately for Mr. Muir, his lawsuit was summarily dismissed, largely on the grounds that Mr. Matheson lost (lack of standing).

Status of case: Pending in the Florida Court of Appeals. He’s got until February to file his brief, at which point Beckham/Miami will file a response, and we’ll wait for the case to go to oral arguments. Probably sometime in the late spring. It’s likely to follow the same path as Matheson’s: If Muir loses, expect him to appeal before the Supremes.

[UPDATE 12/30/19]: The case was dismissed for mootness and lack of ripeness (premature). Chalk up another win for Inter Miami.

David Winker v. Miami Commissioners (Miami Freedom Park; Filed 2019)

And people say we don’t have a true soccer pyramid. Our last Miami-based litigation (for now) is a recent entrant. Mr. Winker’s suit focuses more on the circumstances behind the approval of the ballot language. Among the allegations are illegal lobbying.

Allegations of lobbying while not being registered.

These allegations resulted in a request from the City not to engage with Beckham or his group, which delayed negotiations with the commissioners to develop a lease/development agreement. That specific issue has now been cleared up, but the suit alleges that due to the alleged illegal lobbying, the referendum should be vacated.

Status of case: Super early. Not sure all of the parties have even been served yet. Expect MLS and/or the City to move to dismiss the case due to a lack of standing, among other things. Interestingly, in clearing up the lobbying issue, MLS had to disclose the ownership structure of the Beckham group, as well as who owns Miami Freedom Park.

  InterMiami FC ownership structure

Jorge Mas owns MiamiFreedomPark LLC

As I’ve noted previously, the other issue Beckham and MLS have is that they need four of five commissioners to agree to a lease, and right now two of the commissioners are adamantly opposed. So we’ll see how that goes. 

[UPDATE] Well, there is no update on the lawsuit, but Beckham and company have announced they’re trying to take their talents to Ft. Lauderdale for two years, while they try to salvage the Melreese deal. Full update here.

[UPDATE 12/30/19]: Winker has all but abandoned the lawsuit at this point, and the lobbying issues have essentially been resolved, so this lawsuit is basically moot at this point.

Bruce Matheson v. Miami (Overtown site, filed 2018):

Yeah so I totally missed this one. Although it died almost a quickly as it appeared. Similar to the Muir lawsuit, Matheson sued because he believed the ballot language was incomplete and misleading. The court dismissed the case on summary judgment motion. Man, Beckham really does have some good attorneys.

Status of the case: It’s set to be appealed. I’ll update as needed, but it’s unlikely this case goes anywhere, much like Matheson’s previous attempts.

[UPDATE 12/30/19]: This case is going through the appeals process. Not much to update as of now.

Inter v. Inter: The case of the transcendental trademark.

Sometimes, you just have to point and laugh. This isn’t a lawsuit per se. Essentially, what’s going on here is that Italian giants F.C. Internazionale placed a trademark application on the “Inter” name, and MLS has filed an objection to that claim, arguing you can’t trademark a common name like that. 

Status of the case: It’s working it’s way through the standard trademark channels. A hearing is set October 2020. Presumably, MLS and Inter Miami will continue to use the name until then.

[UPDATE 12/30/19]: This case is still making its way through the discovery process. Trial still set for October 2020.

FXE Futbol v. Inter Miami/Ft. Lauderdale

Our last stop (for now) on the Miami lawsuit machine takes us about 30 miles to the north, in Ft. Lauderdale. As referenced above, the problems that Beckham has had getting his Melreese project over the line has led him to deal with Ft. Lauderdale, so that he can have a place to play for the start of the 2020 season. His proposal came up against another from FXE Futbol, who wanted to refurbish Lockhart and start a USL Championship side. Beckham’s proposal would assume control of Lockhart Stadium (former home of the Ft. Lauderdale Strikers), demolish it, and construct a 18,000 seat stadium. The Ft. Lauderdale City Commissioners debated both proposals and picked the Beckham deal, which rankled FXE Futbol, who have subsequently sued on a number of grounds.

Status of the Case: Just today (4/23/19), the City and Beckham executed an Interim Agreement to allow them to demolish Lockhart. FXE Futbol will be heading to court to obtain a preliminary injunction and prevent that, pending the lawsuit.

[UPDATE 12/30/19]: This case was voluntarily dismissed by FXE after they lost their case to prevent Inter Miami from entering a deal with Ft. Lauderdale. Lockhart has long since been demolished and a new stadium is rising up in its stead, which will house Inter Miami for two years (at least).

…I think that’s it for Beckham-related lawsuits.

THE UNITED STATES OF LAWSUITS

Perhaps it’s a good thing that U.S. Soccer (Mens) team failed to make the World Cup; it’s allowed them to devote considerable resources to fighting various lawsuits around the country (too soon?).

NASL v. USSF/MLS (Anti-trust)

The lawsuit is in some ways a proxy battle for what soccer in the United States will (or should) look like for a generation. There are so many intertwined issues here it’s a bit difficult to summarize concisely. I’m going to focus on the lawsuit itself though, in order not to get sucked down the rabbit hole. The NASL, created in part to compete with MLS for division one supremacy, came into existence around the turn of the decade. Over the years, they had ups and downs as they pursued that goal. Around 2015, their fortunes began to take a turn for the worse due to issues with Traffic Sports (indictments) and teams leaving for MLS (Minnesota United) or USL (San Antonio and Ottawa).

Things came to a head in the winter of 2016, when the New York Cosmos (and presumably the league) were a fax away from going out of business. They were saved by Rocco Commisso, who purchased the Cosmos and secured provisional sanctioning for the league for the 2017 season (all professional leagues under the USSF umbrella must apply for sanctioning every year).

Unfortunately for the NASL, in September of 2017, the USSF declined to extend sanctioning to the league for 2018, which led to a lawsuit and a request for an injunction to allow the league to continue playing. Both the preliminary injunction and subsequent appeal of said injunction request were denied, and currently the league exists in name only. The lawsuit itself is very much alive, however.

While the USSF indicated they were going to file a motion to dismiss the case, they ended up doing a 180 and filing a (somewhat catty) response to the suit. In the meantime, the NASL added MLS as a co-defendant, alleging conspiracy along with various other nasty claims. MLS for their part filed a standard response as well (without the snark). 

Status of the case: Currently in the discovery phase. The parties are exchanging documents and deposing each other (I have it on good authority that former SUM president and USSF presidential candidate Kathy Carter has already been deposed). Discovery isn’t scheduled to be completed until November, so that means a trial (if there is one) isn’t likely until Winter 2020.

Schedule for the NASL v. USSF/MLS lawsuit. Subject to change.

[UPDATE 12/30/19]: The discovery process is scheduled to close on January 17, 2020, which is really, REALLY soon. We’ll see if the parties are actually done by then. If they are, expect some fireworks in the late winter, as we get summary judgment motions and potentially a trial schedule.

NASL v. USSF (New York)

The lawsuit that, as it turned out, was an offshoot of the anti-trust case. While the anti-trust case focus on the actions of the USSF and MLS writ large, the New York case alleged that specific members of the Federation board breached their fiduciary duties in making the decision not to sanction NASL for the 2018 season. Specifically, they alleged that then-president Sunil Gulati improperly exerted influence over the board to get them to vote against sanctioning, and that certain board members didn’t do the basic research before making their decision.

So if the anti-trust case is like suing the business for alleged wrongdoing, the New York case was like suing the employees in a separate case for deciding to engage in wrongdoing. And you can probably see the problem. The USSF then filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that these two lawsuits largely overlapped, and thus was a waste of judicial resources (and attorney’s fees).

Status of the case: Dismissed. The judge sided with the argument from the USSF, agreeing that litigating cases with substantially similar facts would not be in the interests of judicial economy. There were some other hyper-technical rulings made, but no need to get into those here.

USSF (Foundation) v. USSF

This is an odd one for sure. The US Soccer Foundation was formed out of profits from the 1994 World Cup, but does not have any really affiliation with the US Soccer Federation, aside from both board of directors having some of the same people (which is another issue). The basic story is: The Foundation has used the name US Soccer Foundation for 25 years without any complaints from the Federation, even though the Federation owns the trademarks.

Last summer, the Federation asked the Foundation to stop using the marks, presumably because the Federation wants to use them for their own purposes (though the Federation did not respond when asked what their intentions were, according to the Foundation).

A summary of the issues at hand, according to the Foundation.

I spoke to the Foundation president, Ed Foster-Simeon shortly after the case was filed. He made it clear that handing over the marks to the Federation would put the Foundation at risk of closing, given the difficulty of building a name/reputation from scratch.

The legal case regarding trademarks is an interesting one: Did the Federation essentially waive any claim due to their alleged inaction? Would the Federation be unfairly enriching themselves by taking control of the Foundation marks (and thereby the good name they’ve developed)?

Status of the case: An extension was granted to the Federation to respond to the lawsuit, and apparently the parties are having conversations, but the nature of those discussions were not disclosed.

[UPDATE]: The Federation has responded, and the Foundation has answered. It looked for a moment like a settlement was possible, but that is decidedly NOT case now. I’ll have a story on that soon.

[UPDATE 12/30/19]: This case, right now, looks like it’s going to go to trial. The parties are deep in the discovery process, so we’ll see if that leads to more settlement negotiations down the road. I know that offers have been made to resolve the case, but those negotiations as yet have not borne any fruit.

Crossfire v. USSF/MLS/Tottenham

Another case which threatens to change the course of soccer in the United States from the youth academies to MLS. I’ve written a ton about the issues here, which center around solidarity payments (sp) and training compensation (tc). SP/TC are a system by which teams are rewarded for developing players who are later sold (solidarity payments) or sign their first professional contracts (training compensation). It’s a system used all over the world…except in the US, where MLS has refused to participate, and the USSF has refused to get involved to make them.

In 2015, Crossfire Premier decided to push the issue after Deandre Yedlin was sold by MLS to Tottenham, and requested the appropriate solidarity payments. MLS refused and kept all of the money, and Crossfire went to the Dispute Resolution Chamber to get relief. Neither MLS nor the USSF ever filed a response. Tottenham did, and basically blamed MLS and the USSF for the whole thing.

Status of the case: The ruling is supposedly imminent, but it’s been that way since about December 2018. That isn’t a long time, but certainly people are anxious to find out if the DRC sides with Crossfire, which could upend youth development in this country given the recent big money transfer of Christian Pulisic.

As for MLS: They’ve mostly changed their mind on the issue. However, the MLS Players Association is just as opposed as ever (I spoke to the head of the MLSPA, Bob Foose, myself last week and confirmed their position). That said, we’ll see what they do if they don’t like what the DRC has to say. I’ve heard conflicting things regarding how the MLSPA will handle things going forward (more on that later).

[UPDATE] The DRC has not only heard the Yedlin/Crossfire case, but the Clint Dempsey and Michael Bradley cases as well. Not only that, but the Dempsey and Bradley cases were dismissed. 

[MEGA UPDATE] Oh man, did we get some major news. MLS has agreed to start collecting and paying solidarity payments and training compensation. You can read all about it. The Yedlin case is still pending; we’ll see if we get an answer soon.

[UPDATE 12/30/19]: The Yedlin case was dismissed on technical grounds, though Crossfire essentially won the argument. Attempts to collect the solidarity payment have not as yet been successful. 

Ottawa Fury/USL v. Concacaf:

I’ll have a lot more on this story in the next week or so, but boy this flashed into our consciousness like a shooting star. This has a lot more to do with political machinations than legal maneuverings per se, but since we could be dealing with this again sometime this summer, it feels right to include it. The (brief) background here is that the Ottawa Fury, current residents of the USL Championship, rebuffed a move to the nascent Canadian Premier League for the 2019 season.

The reasons (and there are many) revolve around the reluctance of an established team leaving an established league for the uncertainty of a new professional soccer league in Canada. There are certain requirements of teams wanting to play outside their domestic league, including establishing “exceptional circumstances” per the FIFA statutes, and getting premising from the domestic soccer federation (the CSA), the foreign soccer federation (USSF), the foreign soccer league (USL) and the confederation (Concacaf).

In December, the Fury were in the process of finalizing those approvals when Concacaf decided to drop the preemptive hammer and refuse permission to the Fury. That would have left them with the choice of trying to get into the CPL, or playing in some other Canadian league, or going on hiatus/folding.

The Fury find out Concacaf isn’t going to sanction them to play in the USL.

The Fury didn’t take that lying down, going public and filing with the Court of Arbitration for Sport to get an injunction against the Concacaf ruling. In the aftermath, Concacaf backed down, allowing the Fury to play in the USL…for 2019. The legal definition of “exceptional circumstances” is as clear as mud, but either way Concacaf’s decision not to accept the Fury’s application was curious, given they hadn’t received it yet.

Status of the case: To be continued. The sanctioning is only good for 2019, so the Fury will have to go through this again. The former president for the Canadian Soccer Association was instrumental in getting the Canadian Premier League off the ground, and it is a poorly kept secret that he wants the Fury in the CPL. We’ll see what happens this summer after the CPL starts playing games and we get a feel for the quality (and financial viability) of the league.

[UPDATE 12/30/19]: The Ottawa Fury have gone out of business, unable to secure sanctioning for the 2020 season in USL. This was likely a foregone conclusion based on the stay of execution they received at the end of 2018. 

Hope Solo v. USSF

This one slipped a bit under my radar, and it really shouldn’t have. Solo’s issues with the USSF are long and varied, and this complaint is the latest in a long line of litigation. Solo first filed a complaint with the EEOC, but after not receiving any meaniful action, decided to purse the instant litigation.The action in this case has picked up in recent weeks, and I’ve not had a chance to review the pleadings in the case. That will change soon, and I’ll dedicate a separate story to the case, as it looks very interesting.

Status of the case: Well, it’s a bit complicated. The USSF has filed a motion to dismiss the case, as well as a motion to transfer venue, which is a bit interesting. I assume the USSF wants to get the case out of Califonia for one reason or another; once I get a chance to read the pleadings, I’ll update. There is a case management conference set for next month, so we’ll see where things are at then.

Upcoming case schedule.

[UPDATE] Oh man, is there an update. The USWNT has sued the federation much on the same grounds that Solo sued them: Pay discrimination and sex discrimination. I wrote up a big story for The Athletic; check it out!

[UPDATE 12/30/19]: A case schedule has been set, with trial currently scheduled for October 2020. Discovery is ongoing.

USWNT v. USSF

This one had been simmering for quite awhile. Most of the background is covered in my Athletic story, but for those without a subscription (and go get one!), this one centers around allegations of pay disparities and disparate working conditions for the women versus the men. The suit is similar (identical really) to the Hope Solo suit, though the USWNT are not cooperating with her for a number of reasons (not the least of which is the fact that Solo may have filed her suit before it was timely).

I wrote up a Twitter thread which goes through the suit in detail, so check that out.

Status of the case: It was just filed on the 8th of March, so the Federation has yet to formally respond. They’ll need to either answer the complaint or file a procedural motion (dismissal) soon. I’ll be sure to cover that when they do.

[UPDATE] The parties are in the messy process of trying to determine 1) Whether these cases should be consolidated, and 2) Where the cases should be heard (San Francisco, Los Angeles or Chicago). Should have an update in May.

[UPDATE 12/30/19]: The USWNT were granted class action status in their lawsuit in fairly emphatic fashion. The parties are now engaged in the discovery process, and trial is set for May, 2020.

Relevent Sports v. USSF

This case is a rehash of sorts of the Champions World case, where the authority of USSF to regulate professional soccer (and sanction international games) was challenged. That case was dismissed on some technical grounds, but interestingly, there was a ruling that said that the Ted Stevens act (which grants the USSF power to regulate olympic/amateur sports) did not extend to the professional ranks. Here, Relevent Sports would like to put on a regular season game involving two Ecuadorian sides, having failed to bring a La Liga game here last year. They’re accusing the Federation of slow-walking their application, and are challenging their authority generally. The Federation for their part are arguing that FIFA guidelines prevent the game from being played in the United States.

Status of the case. The matter was just filed in April, and Relevent’s complaints was also amended. The Federation has yet to formally respond to the suit.

[Update 12/30/19]: This case was dismissed by stipulation on 12/06/19, but in September 2019, a federal anti-trust lawsuit was filed by Relevent.

Relevant Sports v. USSF (anti-trust)

In September 2019, Relevent filed a lawsuit alleging that the USSF has conspired with Soccer United Marketing to block foreign leagues from holding competitive matches in the United States. It’s similar to complaints lodged by Relevent in the past (see above). The twist here is that the relief, if granted, could prevent the federation from sanctioning much of anything, as the complaint goes directly after the federation’s sanctioning authority.

Status of the case: Much like the ChampionsWorld case, the Federation is trying to have the matter dismissed and sent to arbitration. The parties are currently arguing over that point. We should know more at the beginning of the year, as pleadings are due by January 3, 2020.

PUTTING OUT MLS FIRES

Chicago Fire (Calderon v. Village of Bridgeview, Illinois et al)

Oh what a mess, and I don’t just mean the lawsuit itself. The Fire’s other off-field issues have been…well documented, so I’m not going to get into those here. As to the lawsuit…yeesh. It’s the culmination of a relationship with the supporters groups that has grown toxic. Much like the relationship with Bridgeview. There are a multitude of allegations here, ranging from conspiracy to false arrest to violations of civil rights.  

I won’t repeat too much here, but the gyst is that after an incident on May 20, 2018, a Fire supporter was arrested for battery on a police officer, and subsequently banned from Fire games for a year. Except, the battery charge was dismissed when video evidence surfaced that appears to show no assault occured. It’s a wild read, that’s for sure.

Status of the case: We’re just at the beginning. My understanding is that just about everyone has been served and entered appearances. The next step will be for the various defendants (15 in all) to respond to the lawsuit, or file a motion to dismiss. That should be happening in the next several weeks.

[UPDATE 12/30/19]: The defendants have filed a motion to dismiss, and multiple extensions have been granted to file a response. I’ll try to get a more firm update on where things stand. 

Save our Fairgrounds v. Nashville

These plaintiffs can’t seem to take a hint, at least based on their luck in court thus far. This is the second (third?) bite at the apple for SoF, as they attempted to sue Nashville back in 2017 while the city was getting the deal to build the stadium approved. The group filed suit back then claiming that the stadium deal would damage the existing flea market, which is supposedly protected by City Charter, but it was dismissed when the judge found the suit wasn’t ripe, as the money had not been appropriated. Once the money was approved in September 2018, they sued again.

Actually, it appears there are two lawsuits going on at the same time: One against the City and one against Nashville Metro. Confusing, I know.

Status of the case(s)?: Dismissed. On Thursday, the court entered summary judgment against SoF, ruling in emphatic (even brutal) fashion. Additionally, they awarded costs to the City, which means the suit bordered on the frivolous. The ruling essentially found that the City was doing what they needed to do to comply with the charter. The plaintiffs have vowed to appeal all the way to the Supreme Court. Good luck. The remaining lawsuit is unlikely to get much traction either, but we’ll see.

[UPDATE] The remaining lawsuit has been voluntarily dismissed. It could come back later, but that seems highly unlikely. However, the initial lawsuit which was dismissed after a hearing is set to be heard again on March 21. This is likely a motion to have the judge reconsider their ruling.

[UPDATE 12/30/19]: The appeal was successful, so the lawsuit was sent back down to the lower court. In the meantime, another lawsuit was filed alleging a conflict of interest with regarding bids and contracts and the new stadium. It’s an absolute mess.

San Antonio v. MLS (?)

Sooooo, this is an interesting one. There isn’t a lawsuit that has been filed in this case, but a little background: When MLS announced they were expanding to 28 teams, 12 cities threw their names in the hat to try to land a franchise. One of those was San Antonio, who were finishing up an ownership transition whereby the San Antonio Spurs assumed control over the soccer team with the City and County owning the stadium. There were certain conditions attached to the sale, including a provision that the Spurs would have to pay $5 million to the county if they didn’t land a MLS franchise within 10 years.

So, off the Spurs went to try to win approval for a team. Except… Enter Anthony Precourt, now the owner of Austin FC. Unbeknownst to the Spurs and Bexar County, Mr. Precourt in 2013 had a clause inserted into his purchase of the Crew that would allow him to relocate to Austin, should the “business metrics” in Columbus not work out.

Mr. Precourt of course attempted to exercise that clause in 2017 to relocate the Crew. And he would have gotten away with it, had it not been for those pesky kids (see above). Apparently MLS was dead set on getting to Austin, because instead of just paying Mr. Precourt out and sending on his way (which is allowed per MLS rules), they worked to get him a stadium deal in Austin.

And, they did it! The stadium deal was finalized, and Mr. Precourt is set to start his MLS franchise in 2021. Circling back to Mr. Precourt’s announcement in October 2017 about relocating the Crew to Austin: It didn’t sit well with Bexar County officials. Specifically, one Judge Nelson Wolff, who requested his attorneys analyze whether MLS had committed fraud in inducing a San Antonio purchase of the stadium and bid, while knowing they where hot for Austin and unlikely to have two teams within such a short distance (we’ll ignore the Red Bulls and NYCFC, and LA/LAFC, and Columbus and Cincinnati for that matter).

A summary of the findings from the Bexar County investigation.

Status of the case: It’s complicated. The findings from the investigation found that while MLS behavior was “unfair, unethical and duplicitous” (ouch!), there didn’t appear to be a cause of action due to San Antonio withdrawing from consideration from teams 25 and 26, which were what MLS was considering at the time (Nashville and Cincinnati). That said, the ruling did not foreclose future litigation, should MLS conduct a future round of expansion (and we know they’re going to).

The door remains open to litigation.

So, those in Bexar County with dreams of Don Garber being frogmarched through the streets of San Antonio can keep hope alive. Though I suspect MLS awards San Antonio a team before that happens. Rough way to start a relationship though.

Friends of McKalla/Indy Austin/Bill Aleshire v. Austin (?)

Might as well finish up with another potential Austin lawsuit. With the completion of the lease/development and awarding of the team, the time would seem to be ripe for Bill Aleshire, local attorney to decide what he wants to do regarding his threatened lawsuit. Back in June 2018, I did an interview with him regarding his concerns over the proposed deal. At the time Mr. Aleshire indicated that any lawsuit that he may file would be dependent on when the deal between MLS and Austin was finalized.

Well, we’re at that point now. Austin FC is planning to break ground in September 2019. Given that timeline, it would seem that a suit would need to be filed in the next couple of months, assuming he intends to seek an injunction to prevent construction. Once construction is under way, it’ll be substantially more difficult to stop.

I spoke the Mr. Aleshire after the announcement in January, and he was still reviewing the lease agreement, so no decision has been made on a lawsuit. Regarding the referendum(s): Friends of McKalla have filed the required signatures to force a referendum, but there is a debate as to whether it can be held in May or November.

Status of the case(s): Up in the air. The City claims the referendum must be in November, claiming a rule that prevents elections from being held within six months of each other. On that point, Mr. Aleshire told me if the City tries to push it off until November, they’ll be sued. “The city charter prohibits ‘special’ elections within 6 months of each other, but the November election was a ‘general’ election.” Aleshire said. “This Mayor and Council majority already lost one lawsuit thinking they could block such an election.”

As for IndyAustin, it looks like they’re not pursuing their efforts anymore, after some controversy.

[UPDATE 12/30/19]: This case–and associated fighting over the Austin FC stadium–is done and dusted.

Mike Petke v. Real Salt Lake/MLS/Don Garber

This case is an absolute wild ride. Petke, the former coach of Real Salt Lake, was filed in August 2019 after what can charitably be called a tirade towards officials after a Leagues Cup match. Initially he was suspended and ordered to undergo anger management, but he was later fired after some comments surface from RSL owner Dell Loy Hansen which made his continued employment problematic.

He then sued, alleging breach of contract and various other causes of action. That suit later grew to include Don Garber, after MLS and RSL moved to have the case transferred to arbitration, where Garber would be the one overseeing the case.

Status of the case [12/20/19]: Somewhat surprisingly, MLS and RSL prevailed in their motion to have the case sent to arbitration. It’s unclear if Petke has appealed, but I will check in to see where things stand.

So there you go: Every major litigation in the United States related to soccer. There is actually one more: The petition before the Court of Arbitration for Sport attempting to force U.S. Soccer to implement promotion/relegation, filed by Miami FC and Kingston Stockade. However, there is next to no information available on that case, beyond the petition that was filed. I’ve reached out seeking comment, but have yet to hear back. If I do, I’ll be sure to update this space.

[UPDATE] Still a black hole of information, though there is a public relations move afoot to get things moving.

[UPDATE 12/30/19]: All I can say is that this case was heard by CAS, but the parties are under a gag order preventing them from talking about it. 

Your Guide to Every Soccer Lawsuit in the United States (and Beyond) [End of 2019 Update] Writing about soccer litigation seems like a full-time job these days. Every time one case gets resolved (SaveTheCrew), another one pops up in its place (Chicago Fire).

[global-news-station]

HAVANA: Cuban Communist Party leader Raul Castro said on Wednesday Cuba would never abandon its leftist ally Venezuela despite U.S. “blackmail”, even as the Trump administration threatened more sanctions over its support.

In a speech to the national assembly, meeting to enact the new constitution, Castro said Cuba had been upping defense preparedness in recent months in view of increased U.S. hostility.

The island nation had also been adopting economic measures to contend with the Trump administration’s tightening of the decades-old U.S. trade embargo, Castro told legislators.

“We will never abandon our duty of acting in solidarity with Venezuela,” Castro said. “We reject strongly all types of blackmail.”

U.S. Vice President Mike Pence told the United Nations Security Council on Wednesday the United States would announce additional action to hold Cuba accountable for its support of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro.

Read More: UN rights chief criticises United States on sanctions against Venezuela

The administration of U.S. President Donald Trump has accused Cuban security and intelligence officials of propping up Maduro’s government. Cuba denies those claims.

 “Cuba is being blamed for all evils, using lies and the worst kind of Hitlerian propaganda,” Castro said. “We have told the U.S. administration Cuba is not afraid and will continue building the future of the nation without outside interference.”

The enactment of the new constitution allows Cuba’s government to launch a modest revamp of its centrally planned single party system with dozens of laws expected on everything from the justice system to political structures.

Many observers are hopeful the government will open Cuba’s still inefficient state-run economy further to free enterprise with a law recognizing private businesses, not just self-employment, although they do not expect that to be among the first pieces of legislation it tackles.

That could give a boost to an economy which has had to contend with declining aid from Venezuela and a resulting cash crunch over the past three years, prompting the government to introduce austerity measures.

Shortages of basic goods have increased recently, including flour, eggs and chicken, with the state even reducing the size and circulation of its newspapers due to a lack of newsprint.

The situation could worsen further in coming months in view of the tightening U.S. trade embargo, Castro warned.

That did not mean a return to the kind of deep crisis Cuba experienced following the 1991 collapse of its former benefactor the Soviet Union, however, as its economy had diversified since then, he said.

SLEW OF NEW LAWS

Cubans overwhelmingly ratified the new constitution in a February referendum after a year of debate, updating its 1976 Soviet-era Magna Carta.

While it retains socialism as “irrevocable,” it codifies changes in Cuban society since 1991, like the opening of the economy to free enterprise, and includes a political restructuring among other changes.

Analysts say the constitution gives some leeway as to how reformist the around 50 laws needed to bring the legal system in line with it should be.

 “The formation of a more open and democratic country depends on this process and not on the constitution,” said Cuban lawyer and legal columnist for independent media Eloy Viera Cañive.

The constitution stipulates that the national assembly must approve a new electoral law to reflect the restructuring of government within six months.

Cuban Communist Party leader Raul Castro is seen on television, addressing members of the National Assembly during the enactment of the new constitution, at a photo studio, in Havana, Cuba April 10, 2019. REUTERS/Fernando Medina

Within the following three months, it must elect a president, widely expected to remain Miguel Diaz-Canel, who succeeded Castro last April. That president must then appoint provincial governors and a prime minister – a new post separating the role of head of state from head of government.

The Magna Carta stipulates that within 18 months, new laws reflecting constitutional changes to the judicial system such as the presumption of innocence in criminal cases and habeas corpus should also be introduced.

The process of a popular consultation and referendum on a new family code, that will address the controversial issue of gay marriage, should also be kicked off within two years.

The post Castro says Cuba will not abandon Venezuela despite U.S. ‘blackmail’ appeared first on ARYNEWS.

http://bit.ly/2D5tLd4