Slashdot Mirror
Nike Denied First Amendment Defense
Several people have written in about an interesting decision handed down by the California Supreme Court. Nike, which has been repeatedly criticized for sweatshop practices in its contractors' factories, has made a variety of statements to the press contradicting these allegations (although in general, third-party examinations find them to be substantiated). A lawsuit was filed, charging the company with deceptive advertising under California law, and Nike was accused of trying to greenwash its image. Nike claimed that the First Amendment prevented it from being sued for these statements. The first courts to look at the case agreed with Nike; the California Supreme Court agreed with the plaintiffs and allowed the suit to proceed. (See also Nike's press release.) There are all sorts of interesting issues raised concerning corporate and commercial speech, the protection it has/ought to have, etc. There's a law.com article that goes a little more into the legal issues.
I can just see it now. Our filings on our third quarter profit, while exagerated 300% is protected by the 1st ammendment.
Sweatshops or Nazi's...
Just do it.
---
Destiny- land.
The happiest blog on earth.
.. Lets not be too harsh on Nike, I mean they just want to spread happy thoughts right? But If you're really concerned about footwear guilt, why not try Bliss Shoes?.. Because Ignorance is Bliss.
Quote: Just like many low cost 'no-brand' shoes, Bliss Shoes are made by brown people in strange dirty countries. But unlike low cost shoes, ours go through a de-guilting process during the label affixing and packing stages.
Starsucks