Foster] Foster, an employee of the Nevada Department of Forest Services, insisted on signing inter-office memoranda with his name and the initials "FOJT", an abbreviation for his church "Followers of Joshua Trees". Foster's supervisor, Milo, told Foster there was a rule prohibiting displays of religion at work and insisted that Foster cease placing the initials of his church on government paperwork. When Foster refused to follow the work rule, he was terminated.

After his termination, Foster returned to his office to pack his belongings. He uploaded a message on the Department's website, which stated that Milo was a thief and has stolen thousands of dollars from the State of Nevada. Milo, who had not stolen money from the State, later sued Foster for defamation. How would a court likely rule?

• For Foster because he has an absolute right to free speech under the First Amendment.
• For Foster because the rational-basis test applies.
• For Foster because he did not use any lewd, profane, or obscene words.
• For Milo because the First Amendment does not protect defamatory speech.
• For Milo, but only if Foster also used fighting words.