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.

5 of 371 comments (clear)

  1. Beginning of the end? by 1010011010 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
  2. more Evil than MS? by WildBeast · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  3. Why do corps have freedom of speech at all? by rkent · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "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.

    1. Re:Why do corps have freedom of speech at all? by mattdm · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Isn't a corporation just a collection of individuals, no matter how much the Left tries to depersonalize things?

      Um, no, it has nothing to do with "the Left".
      As it stands, a *corporation* does in fact have the legal rights of a human being. Read the message you're replying to. Meanwhile, individuals in the corporation are shielded from personal responsibility for the corporation's actions. If a corporation where indeed legally treated as a collection of individuals, the situation would be totally different -- and probably much better. But it's not, thanks to, I'm going to have to say, "the Right".

  4. Disastrous boilerplate PR by hysterion · · Score: 5, Interesting
    "We believe significant progress has been made in our contract factories and that workers in those factories are better off today than they were in 1998 when this case was filed. (...) Nike's commitment to the continuous improvement of working conditions in our partner factories and rigorous implementation of all our corporate responsibility initiatives remains unchanged."
    Look! You thought you made us change, but not at all! Our commitment to change is unchanged !
    • 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 !!!
    Brown, in a separate dissent, said the majority's decision fails "to account for the realities of the modern world--a world in which personal, political and commercial arenas no longer have sharply defined boundaries."
    Hmmm... Maybe the majority would rather influence this "modern" world, than just describe it?
    --
    Timeo idiotikOS et dona ferentes