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.
So, let's see... when Nike misrepresents itself to the public about how it really abuses human rights according to its own internal audit, they say that that's just them exercising free speech.
:-)
But just try to exercise your constitutional right of free speech by creating a website critical of Nike (or most other megacorporations, these days), and their lawyers will try and in most cases succeed at crushing you, leaving nothing but a smoking crater in their wake.
I guess in addition to yelling "Fire!" in a theater full of people, it's also wrong to yell "Sweatshop!" in a factory in Thailand full of orphans sewing the "Swoosh" on shitty sneakers at midnight.
On the plus side, at least I don't have to change my spending habits-- since I prefer plain, black sneakers and Nike only sells shoes that, if they were cars, would have been driven by pimps in the 70's.
~Philly
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
I don't always agree with the ACLU's choice of clients or their politics, but I understand their absolute need to be there to defend people and personages that the general public wouldn't defend, but since WHEN do corporations have the right to free speech, especially deceptive speech?
The ACLU is absolutely, unflinchingly wrong in this case.
"Enough of this wretched, whining monkey life." -- Marcus Aurelius, _Meditations_, Book 9, 37
Exactly. When Nike said those things, they weren't directly describing a product they were selling. It was more of a debate.
One could argue that such things may be black and white, so no debate is needed. But such issues never are. Sometimes issues can't be reduced to a simple one sentance soundbite. We've all seen news articles where a quote is taken out of context, allowing it mean sometime more sinister than the situation actually is, even though the brief statement may be literally true. In these cases, the accused should be able to elaborate on some of the details.
However, if this ruling stands, special interest groups will be able to express any complaint they wish, and corporations will be more likely to just say "we can't confirm or deny that accusation" no matter how truthful or baseless the accusation is. This will make corporate secrecy even worse.
Like other human rights, free speech is for people. There is no point in extending this right to corporations in general.
In particular, companies should not be allowed to lie.
Then I suppose you think corporations (including non-profit corporations, of course) should be denied:
It's easy to bash corporations (and good for a few karma points), but try to imagine a free society where the above situations are possible. Imagine what would happen not just to our economy, but to our society -- many charities and universities are non-profit corporations -- if these rights didn't exist.
Remember, the Bill of Rights doesn't "give" rights to anyone -- it only prevents the government from taking them away.
Cheers,
IT
Power corrupts. PowerPoint corrupts absolutely.
I guess in a book called "Politics", it makes sense that Aristotle plays both sides of the fence
Aristotle's stance is consistent; it merely doesn't hug one of the extremes.
One problem today in American politics is that a politician is expected to take an extreme stance, and stick to it, like "Abortions for all!" or "No abortions for anyone!" In my mind, the very fact that both extreme stances exist and conflict is essentially proof that neither one in and of itself is correct.
Aristotle is right on both counts; 1) there needs to be a way for laws to adapt when conditions render them obselete; and 2) there needs to be a system set up so that laws can't be changed based on the whims of the moment.
I think the U.S. actually follows these guidelines pretty well; it takes so many votes to amend the constitution that we've really only done it a handful of times. Amendments like the "flag-burning amendment" or "abortion amendment" or "health insurance admendment" have been thought too frivolous to really have to go that deeply into our legal system. Really, with the exception of prohibition, most of the amendments have been absolutely necessary as times changed. Women's sufferage isn't something that should come and go as the national mood changes, but it is certainly something that needed to be implemented when various technologies drastically changed the role of the woman in society.
"Beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he deems himself your master."
No, it's not shutting them up at all. The ruling merely says that the suit attempting to prove that Nike's ads are false and misleading can go forward.
Nike was trying to preemptively strike down the suit before the substantial issues in the case could be heard.
They're free to continue running the ads.
Let me guess - YANAL, right?
If Nike had won this case, it would meant that corporations would be able to lie through their teeth with impunity.
The court made a distinction:
This is not an onerous or unreasonable demand: Nike has a unique ability to know definitively what their own policy and aproaches are, and -- for the most part -- the public generally has to accept what they say as the truth because it's usually rather difficult to do the work it takes to independently investigate the truth of such statements.If what a company is doing is nasty, underhanded and disgusting, they may also be uniquely motivated to lie about what they're doing.
This also doesn't specially bind the company in the debate:
If I knowingly lie about what the company is doing, then I'm subject to a Libel suit (even if I'm not lieing, I could be subject to a SLAPP suit). Similarly, if the company knowingly lies about what they're doing, then they should be subject to a libel suit (or something equivalent to it). This rulling essentially says that they are.
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
the right to be free of religious persecution
People have religions. Corporations, not being people, can't have religions. You might as well talk about corporations wearing blue jeans. The people who own corporations, on the other hand, as well as the employees of those people, may have religions, and discriminating on the basis of the religions of any of those people would remain illegal.
the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure
The people who own the corporations have those rights, so the corporations don't need psuedo-human status to gain those rights. My car doesn't need its own status as a "people" to be free from search and seizure.
the right to due process (5th) and speedy and public jury trials for criminal offenses (6th)
People have due process. The officers of the corporation are people, and are responsible for the actions of the corporation that they own and control (just as I'm responsible for the actions of the car that I drive). I mean, it might be nice if my car (not me) got sued after an accident, but it doesn't make any sense, and it doesn't make any sense in the case of corporations either.
Giving corporations the legal status of property makes far more sense than calling them "people", and doesn't take any rights away from any real person anywhere.
I can't speak directly on the specifics of Nike's facilities and those of its contractors. In general, however, these statistics can be extremely misleading. Yes, the sweatshops tend to pay much more in cash than their workers might make on the farm or in their old villages. But their workers may have to move to a larger (more expensive) town to work there, or they might be required to buy uniforms or tools at prices set by the company, that sort of thing.
More importantly, it's sometimes the case--again speaking very vaguely because I don't know much about this particular company--that the big business interests in poorer countries use illegal (or legal but unethical) means to remove farmers and craftspeople from their farms and villages, where they had lived in a barter or subsistence economy with very little cash.
For example, a young woman in Country X might be earning in the factory ten times the cash she used to make selling eggs from her family's half-dozen chickens; but back home she had nearly free rent, was able to make her own clothes, and had Grandmother nearby to watch the kids. She might have been poor by our standards on the farm but would have had a reasonably stable life, some control, a family network, and the ability to fall back on neighbors and friends when things went wrong.
In the factory, her schedule is dictated, the bosses don't know her or care to, even talking to your fellow workers is punished, and everything costs money. She might not have come there in a truly voluntary way. Perhaps the contractor bought all the local farms from the previous landlord and jacked up the rent just to get cheap labor in the factories. Maybe the government radically increased taxes on small farmers to get the same result. Or, in some countries, she may have been just ordered off the farm by corrupt police or government officials.
I believe that comparing dollars-per-day is dangerously misleading if it's done by the standards of the modern western middle class. Of course you and I know that making ten times as much money per hour is "better." But we're used to paying money for everything, and we don't mind it because of the nice effects of the division of labor that allows. Our job mobility, communication resources, and general ability to control our own lives mean we can hold employers accountable, even in a slow economy. It's not always like that for overseas sweatshop workers--they're far more likely to be evicted from their old villages, and left to work in the factories or starve, than to have freely made a choice to come to the big city for a factory job.
Sure, it may not be as grim all of the time as I'm making it sound. I'm mainly just objecting to the facile proposition that the higher cash wages from the sweatshop system are incompatible with exploitation.