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.
Maybe this heralds the beginning of the end of Constitutional Rights for Legal Fictions -- that whole Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company / 14th Amendment debacle.
(Historical Information)
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
Well, apparently we found a company that's more Evil than MS/Sun/AOL combined :)
Unfortunately, I don't believe that it's up to the court to decide. I think, consumers, should boycott Nike products.
"What this decision means," she added, "is that one side of the debate gets full free speech protection, but a corporation trying to defend itself is subject to strict liability."
Well, good. That's an "inbalance" I can live with. Remember, the topic here is whether or not people are being subjected to sweatshop conditions at Nike factories (or contracted facilities) overseas. Whether you think this is wrong or "it's better than whatever else they'd be doing," I think you're at least entitled to hear the truth about how frequent and how severe it is. Making a corporation responsible to tell the truth in that situation seems like a great idea.
To me, the whole problem starts with "Santa Clara vs. Southern Pacific Railroad," in which the (US) Supreme Court ruled that a corporation is a natural person for the purposes of constitutional rights protections. Which I think is a crock. A corporation shouldn't be entitled to free speech under Article I because it's not a person. It's a legal abstraction.
That said, I don't necessarily think that there should be severe limits on "corporate speech," but to protect them with the same constitutional power as a person creating an artwork or making a politcal protest... please. All corporate speech should be considered commercial speech and should be required, if nothing else, to be true.
-
Nike forbids child labor (...) meeting or in some cases, exceeding certain U.S. and international labor standards.
Look! We're meeting certain international standards!-
Nike pushed the envelope of corporate transparency by placing user-friendly information on it's Web site, www.nikebiz.com
Look! We can't spell, either!-
Nike belongs to the Fair Labor Association, a White House inspired organization to monitor and set policies for companies manufacturing in developing countries.
Look! Our inspiration comes from the place that would never put commercial interests before social, human or environmental rights: the White House !!! Hmmm... Maybe the majority would rather influence this "modern" world, than just describe it?Timeo idiotikOS et dona ferentes
If I spent my life building a hugely successful business, I think I deserve to be rewarded for my hard work. If there's one thing I learned from college, it's that hard work isn't enough. You have to step on people and back stab just to stay afloat.
You have unknowingly touched on where I have a problem with tobacco from a capitalistic standpoint. Capitalism is based upon the consumer's ability to make informed decisions about where to spend their money. This in turn is based upon the principle that free will reigns supreme in the market: consumers and producers are free to decide how to best spend their money. Now, when addictive chemicals are introduced into the equation the model is no longer so pure, and the capitalist system is affected thereby. In the case of tobacco (and other substances with addictive chemicals as a key constituent) you are, to my mind, cheating insofar as capitalism is concerned.
Now, I understand that a certain degree of addiction can be said to take place when almost any substance is consumed. But I think you would agree that nicotine is in a class above other similar chemicals, due to its well known characteristic of being extrordinarily addictive. As such, the continued sale of tobacco causes me a degree of concern as a small-l libertarian. I believe in free market principles, but those principles must occasionally be protected from those who abuse the system. I am increasingly of the opinion that the tobacco companies, instead of merely being another successful player in the free market, are instead the incorporated version of the Cali cartel.
I understand that it is currently fasionable to believe that free will reigns supreme, and that in the case of smoking the initial decision to "spark up" is untainted by any addiction. But please keep in mind two things: First, that the initial decision is usually made in youth, when wisdom is not generally a core part of our character. Second, that the (wise) decision to cease smoking is made more difficult by the addictive nature of nicotine, and that this in and of itself is out of bounds for a successful and fair free market.