Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Nike Denied First Amendment Defense

Posted by michael on from the not-even-an-assist dept.

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.

4 of 371 comments (clear)

  1. Fraud is Illegal by ari_j · · Score: 5, Informative

    There are certain types of speech specifically exempted from First Amendment protection by the courts. Libel, slander, and corporate fraud are among these.

  2. Am I the only person who thinks this is normal by JonK · · Score: 5, Informative

    Maybe I'm misreading something but as far as I could tell from the articles linked, Nike got slapped down for issuing advertising which was untrue. Well, d'oh.

    In Britain, at least, the Advertising Standards Authority exists to ensure, among other things, that advertisments are truthful: surely this is a basic requirement - otherwise we end up with "Smoke Ciggies - They're Good For You". I fail to see how the First Amendment should guarantee a corporation's right to lie to the public in its advertising - this seems to be even more of a perversion of First Amendment rights than most.

    So, is there something I'm missing, or was Nike's case really "We can say what we like with no respect to truth because the First guarantees our right to lie to Joe Public"? If so, then they should have been slapped down, and hard.

    --
    Cheers

    Jon
  3. Nike: The Great Defenders of the First Amendment? by pherris · · Score: 5, Informative

    Any remember Jonah Peretti? He was the guy who tried to get Nike to print "sweatshop" on his new Nike ID sneakers. When they said no he tried to get: Sweat Shop, Child Labor, ChildLabor, Exploit and Swetshop.

    Nike respects the first amendment like Enron respects their employees.

    pherris

    Check out:
    http://www.shey.net/niked.html
    http://www.s alon.com/people/cheapshots/2001/02/08/ artsfund/index2.html
    http://www.villagevoice.com/ issues/0107/jockbeat.p hp

    --
    "And a voice was screaming: 'Holy Jesus! What are these goddamn animals?'" - HST
  4. Re:more Evil than MS? by error0x100 · · Score: 5, Informative

    No, the big tobacco companies have had all of them beat for a long time now. Their products directly kill people.

    They've been trying for years to claim that there is no evidence that smoking causes diseases such as lung cancer, bringing in their own paid "scientists" into "debates" in an attempt to legitimize their "viewpoint". Now I suppose we're going to start hearing that they should be allowed to make such claims as a free speech issue.

    I remember when internal documents of a tobacco company were brought up in court stating that their primary market to advertise to to get new recruits was the "13 to 25" age group. Their defence? "Its a typo". Riiight. (Studies have shown that if you haven't started smoking by age 20, you're pretty much never going to start smoking).

    Philip Morris ("Phillip"?) recently published a report on the "indirect positive economic effects of early death". Thats sickening.