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.

Comments

Re:The money goes toward advertising.

[generic-man]

In 1993, Michael Jordan alone was paid more money than the 30,000 Indonesian women combined to make his Nike shoes.

So? You're comparing an American professional athlete to a worker in a third-world country. The average American pays 20 times more than the average Indonesian for everything.

Stop complaining about people making too much money.

Re:Alternatives to sweatshops:

[macshit]

As far as sweatshop-free athletic shoes, the least of many evils appears to be New Balance

Yeah, but ...

The last time I was on Microsoft's Redmond campus (granted, this was a long time ago, in '94), New Balance was everywhere.* I was horrified, and immediately went home and got rid of all my NB shoes.

Sure, if you wear Nike, you're condemning countless innocent people to lives of degradation and misery -- but is that really worse than wearing the Shoes of the Beast?

Think long and hard before you go that way...

[* Note, this is quite true, and I really did swear off NB after that, though I suppose that says more about me than about NB... :-']

Re:The money goes toward advertising.

[generic-man]

So is the comparison invalid because Jordan is a pro, and they are unskilled workers?

Yes, it is.

Or because he's an athlete, and they won't be doing sports anytime soon?

That also invalidates the comparison. You can compare unskilled workers in Indonesia to unskilled workers in the United States, making adjustments for different costs of living.

Or because he's an American and they're, well, gooks?

I did not bring race into this argument, and I am disappointed in you for doing so.

Or is it because Jordan, the average American he is, needs to pay his chauffeur and his bodyguards and the Indonesians only need some chow?

Michael Jordan is not an average American. If you wanted to help the Indonesians, you'd stop whining about Nike, fly to Indonesia, and give them some food.

In fact, I'm sure you have more money than most Indonesian people.

Shame on you.