Slashdot Mirror
Supreme Court Takes Nike Free Speech Case
MacAndrew writes "The Supreme Court has granted review in a case previously discussed here that could lead to a landmark decision regarding "commercial speech." The California Supreme Court had ruled that Nike's statements denying the use of sweatshop labor in Asia could be challenged under the state's strict truth in advertising laws, under which truth is not a defense if a statement's context is deemed misleading, First Amendment notwithstanding. The California court essentially rejected Nike's claim to heightened political speech protection -- which would have allowed the company to raise defenses of truth and due care -- reasoning that Nike's statements were calculated to induce product purchases and thus commercial speech. The U.S. Supreme Court's consideration of this case provides a clear opportunity to reconsider the controversial political-commercial speech dichotomy in constitutional law. It is essential to bear in mind the question at this point is not whether Nike did anything wrong, rather to determine the standards by which it will be judged. The commercial speech question relates to many, many topics discussed here, such as telemarketer DNC lists, telecom disclosure of customer calling data, spam, spam, and spam."
Supreme Court Takes Nike Free Speech Case!!! more like celda
We know politicians and judges are merely corporate puppets, so don't expect any justice in this case.
Perhaps the truth is less interesting than the facts?
One question--why does commercial speech get less protection under the law than other types? Is there something inherently bad about making money?
Speech is speech...as long as it cannot be proven false, all types of speech should receive the same protection.
"Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"
All they have to do is reverse Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad and all free speech problems such as this are solved! As long as corporations are counted as people and make lies about various things in public (sweatshops for example), free speech rights will always be in jeopardy. 1st amendment rights aren't something that should be used as a convenient defence against lying in public.
The first ammendment applies to opinions. Companies, on the other hand, offer commercial goods. If Phillip Morris states that cigarrettes do not cause cancer they are not expressing an opinion. They are describing the commercial good which they sell, and they should be held liable if the promise made is false.
Nike made a statement about the nature of the labor that produces their goods that is an integral part of the description of the nature and quality of their goods. If they lie about it they are not just freely expressing an opinion.
Surprisingly, it seems that the legal experts believe they *are* just expressing an opinion. A company can openly lie about the product they sell and that is AOk. If that is not orwellian 1984 I do not know what is.
Mr. Bun: Morning.
Waitress: Morning.
Mr. Bun: Well, what you got?
Waitress: Well, there's egg and bacon; egg, sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg, bacon and spam; egg, bacon, sausage and spam; spam, bacon, sausage and spam; spam, egg, spam, spam, bacon and spam; spam, sausage, spam, spam, spam, bacon, spam, tomato and spam; spam, spam, spam, egg and spam; (Vikings start singing in background) spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, baked beans, spam, spam, spam and spam.
Vikings: Spam, spam, spam, spam, lovely spam, lovely spam.
Waitress: (cont) or lobster thermador ecrovets with a bournaise sause, served in the purple salm Mr. Bunor with chalots and overshies, garnished with truffle pate, brandy, a fried egg on top and spam.
Mrs. Bun: Have you got anything without spam?
Waitress: Well, there's spam, egg, sausage and spam. That's not got much spam in it.
Mrs. Bun: I don't want any spam!
Mr. Bun: Why can't she have egg, bacon, spam and sausage?
Mrs. Bun: That's got spam in it.
Mr. Bun: It hasn't got as much spam in it as spam, egg, sausage and spam has it?
Mrs. Bun: (over Vikings starting again) Could you do me egg, bacon, spam and sausage without the spam then?
Waitress: Ech!
Mrs. Bun: What do you mean ech! I don't like spam!
Vikings: Lovely spam, wonderful spam....etc
Waitress: Shut up! Shut up! Shut up! Bloody vikings. You can't have egg, bacon, spam and sausage without the spam.
Mrs. Bun: I don't like spam!
Mr. Bun: Shh dear, don't cause a fuss. I'll have your spam. I love it. I'm having spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, baked beans, spam, spam, spam and spam. (starts Vikings off again)
Vikings: Lovely spam, wonderful spam...etc
Waitress: Shut up! Baked beans are off.
Mr. Bun: Well, can I have her spam instead of the baked beans?
Waitress: You mean spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, and spam?
Vikings: Lovely spam, wonderful spam...etc...spam, spam, spam! (in harmony)
Nobody believes the official spokesman, but everybody trusts an unidentified source. -- Ron Nesen
I can just see it now. Our filings on our third quarter profit, while exagerated 300% is protected by the 1st ammendment.
Just Sue It.
...I wonder if I am hypocritical in my reasoning.
I think Nike and any other company that exploits 3rd world labour forces, should be taken to the cleaners. They are as despicable as big tobacco, and just as ugly. I would support any other company that makes a sneaker that is as comfortable and lasts as long.
Nike is no dummy when it comes to marketing. Considering that nearly everyone wears shoes at some point in the day, it is a cut throat market. I'm sure many good companies have gone the way of the dodo, because American law didn't provide them with adaquate protection from companies like Nike who exploit the human race.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
Typical bandwagon-jumping, woe-me-my-rights-are-being-trampled, passive attitude which we see so often here in these forums. Don't blame society for your inability to fight for your own right.
http://discover.npr.org/features/feature.jhtml?wfI d=913270
It is, without a doubt, NOT speech. Speech is expression or opinion... Nike made an incorrect statement of fact (ig. they lied). There is no artistic value in that.
Next we'll be able to advertise false prices, and make other false claims and say it was just speech.
If this gets an okay, the US will be the ultimate politican's paradise, as you can make any statement, and there are no criminal or civil penalties.
"Yes, my client confessed to murder, but that was protected speech, so you can't use it... Nah nah!"
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Corporations are supposed to server the greater good. But the drive for profit at all costs does not serve society well at all; it serves only a handful of shareholders looking to make a return on an investment. It's absurd to give powerful corporations the right to flagrantly violate laws of human decency in order to improve the bottom line.
<a href="http://www.joblessjimmy.com">Work is dumb and so is Jobless Jimmy.</a>
Another AC. What's your problem are you too much of a Karma whore to use your own ID?
[insert picture of your anti-favorite politician here]
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Sounds like they're rather legally exposed due to these laws.
It's thought provoking reading nonetheless. Check it out...
It boils down to this: Activists said misleading (but not legally false) things about Nike. Nike responded to those unkind statements with "misleading" (but not legally false) statements. Nike is in trouble for "misleading" commercial speech.
"Commercial speech" is...what, exactly? Speech designed to tell you how to spend your money. Perhaps the activists' speech is also therefore commercial speech. If it's truly misleading, then the activists in question should be held accountable for it.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
again, it's the pot calling the kettle black, use your own id you "karma whore"! don't be such a f*cking loser and grow up! Or at least try to lose your virginity, that might loosen you up a bit.
There is a transaction taking place, and if you let sellers burn buyers by making misleading inaccurate, or unsubstantiated statements it is a very quick way to destabilize a country.
Seems more like something the USA would do under normal circumstances (the gov is a corporate pawn)
Your joke should have read:
"What a country!"
--
Asses are the 'new' tits.
Mod me down for this, but no one is forcing people to work in their factories. Theres no guards with guns and barbed wire. If they don't like the conditions then simply leave and find work elsewhere. Oh wait there isn't any because its a 3rd world country. How is this my problem again? Just wondering...
Nike, and just about any other manufacturer these days, all use cheap labor overseas. Their argument will probably be that cheap labor overseas is not the same as sweatshops. Therefore, they are not lying.
Does anyone have a good, legal definition of sweatshop?
I posted my initial first comment under my own ID. You don't have the balls to do that...
Or at least try to lose your virginity, that might loosen you up a bit.
I've done your mamma more times than you have jerked off in your life....
I understand all of this strife over people working 18 hour days for a crust of bread, but if they had no means of support wouldn't they be starving? So let's leave that alone for the moment......
A solution would be to purchase shoes from the US or Europe where labor standards are enforced and let Nike and others who have subpar working conditions know.
Nike would still sell shoes, but not to as many people, they would feel the pain before it affected those making your $150.00 shoes for pennies.
Those who do the endorsements would be another place to go after, public people rarely like to be linked with the exploitation of human beings.
Most people have good intentions when it comes to the causes of people in other countries, but that's all they are, intentions.
Isn't most of the stuff we use made by impoverished people anyhow?
A shoe company that thinks its something more than a shoe company complains about other people complaining.
Pass the shotgun, please.
Bowie J. Poag
It never ceases to amaze me how few liberals respect the Bill of Rights, or basic human rights.
Since "sweatshop" is a completely meaningless, derogatory term, Nike is being honest when they say they don't have any-- even if liberals say they do.
This is exactly the same situation as Nike saying "We make fine quality shoes" and liberals suing them because they insist their shoes are not fine quality and that Nike was deceptive in claiming they were.
And on the sweatshop thing-- the liberals hate sweatshops because they hate the poor. They'd ratehr that someone who makes $5 a day sewing shoes for Nike be reduced to making $1 a day scavaging rusted cans, or whatever. If these "sweatshops" are so bad, then why are they preferred by the people who work in them to the alternatives? What, because there are no alternatives? And you would rather have them, thus be removed from the freedom of the one alternative they have? You'd rather they be jobless?
Of course, liberals think that somehow Nike is responsible for there not being lots of better jobs for them to go to. Because Liberals apparently never took economics.
And when you mod me down, realize you're trying to shut me up, just like liberals always do, because you disagree with what I say. I've brought up cogent points here- but I suspect you guys would rather I be denied that speech.
Sue me for false advertising, why don't you?
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23
It wasn't until the late 1800s did a court ruling determine that corporations were people and thus were entitled to the same rights as flesh and blood citizens.
The antidote for misuse of freedom of speech is more freedom of speech.
-- Molly Ivins
On the other hand, commercial speech is held to a higher standard,. When a corporation makes a statement, it is assumed that the statements will greatly influence purchase decisions. For instance, Pizza Hut and Papa Johns were having quite a tiff a while back. The latter was insulting the formers sauce, and the former was insulting the latters water quality, Law suits ensued over truth in advertising. Clearly, if these statement were made by individuals in the street, there would be little contention. But misrepresenting commercial products is a different things.
As I understand it, the issue is whether a company can make public statement that it believes are true but are in fact false. For such a standard, we must accept the proposition the company officials make statements external to the PR machine. In the contemporary corporate world, this seems quite unlikely as communication is quite controlled (think fuckedcompany.com). It seems quite unlikely that statements made to the media are meant to be anything other than advertising. If it is advertising, then just thinking it is true is not enough.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
you're not the initial poster, that moron knew f*ck all. you're just trying to make him look worse than he already does on his own, which makes you a genius compared to him/it.
Just don't get too worked up in playing this troll role; you may tip over your Dungeons&Dragons board again and you will have to start all over again and piss off all of your fictional friends. If you want to learn about trolling properly spend some more time in these forums and observe. You're not ready for the majors.
Good luck.
Ah, the variety on the Internet! There's a site just for you. (Thanks, Google.) More here. And even more here.
... abridging the freedom of speech" is talks of the speech, not the person. The right might be argued to belong to society as well as the individual, and is the right not to have government filter what we are allowed to hear. Also, though corporation are not real persons, neither are they independent automatons. They are collections of human beings who act through the corporation form; just as the corporation has the right to sue and be sued, and in a number of other ways act as a proxy for its constituents, it should "speak."
:) Surely we do not need to apply the same rules to Nike's denying it uses sweatshops as we do to regulating precisely what "low fat" on packaging must mean -- yet that is what California would do.
Many do consider corporate personhood a blunder, though to be picky the law technically sees them as quasi-persons with some, not all, of the rights of citizens, and those that they do have are often reduced in scope and strength.
I don't know of any stirring defenses of corporate personhood. However, when the 1st A. says "Congress shall make no law
I don't have any great love of corporations, but can see some evil in the government manipulating what they can say, perhaps doing so out of selfish self-interest. Oh wait, I'm anthropomorphizing again....
The antidote for misuse of freedom of speech is more freedom of speech.
-- Molly Ivins
The point is not wether we like Nike or not. It should not even be wether Nike wants to sell stuff or not. The problem is: once "commercial" speech looses its freedom, you get a really big problem deciding what "commercial" means.
If I say that Bush is gay, is that a commercial statement? Maybe I'm selling pink suits in Bush's size. Does that make it commercial? The point is: you don't want a court to decide what is commercial and what is not.
Fleur de Sel
Sorry, I jsut got to say it, you're a fucking idiot.
What's the legal definition of "sweatshop"?
Cause its a slur, its meaningless, and saying they don't havge htem is not a lie-- after all, what they have are factories.
Fucking anti-american, anti-bill of rights socialists. You guys make me sick.
You'd rather those poor people starved to death than make products for nike, and that's just sick.
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23
Haha, man this thread is getting funny. This is great entertainment!
Alomex, arguing on the Internet is like winning in the Special Olympics, even if you win you're still retarded (which you may not be, but you are a very silly man nonetheless).
Anyone remember when some guy wanted to get some "Nike ID" personalized running shoes with "Sweatshop" on them. The guy published his experiences on the web.
truth is not a defense if a statement's context is deemed misleading
My strict translation of this phrase: Even if what you said was the strict, factual truth, if anyone thinks you were lying, you've broken the law.
Heaven save us from fools with lawyers.
Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgment.
>> I've brought up cogent points here- but I suspect you guys would rather I be denied that speech.
/. for rational thought on legal issues.
Sheesh, what you've is go on a rant, tossing around the word "liberal" as if it's the strongest insult you can imagine. It is possible to support the Bill of Rights without agreeing with your interpretation of it.
As someone who used to consider himself pretty far to the left, but now considers appellations like "liberal" and "conservative" to be useful only as verbal incitements on talk radio, it seems to me that you're taking a minimalist approach to the First Amendment, ignoring two centuries of interpretation by the courts, while others overlook the fundamental nature of the amendment's protection of free speech. Both are valid; beats me which is "correct".
But, in the end, both sides should realize that story is on Slashdot simply to boost OSDN's ad revenue. Just like on talk radio. I'd rather go to my lawyer for advice on software than go to
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
+1, funny
Underground modding!!
Congressman Bernie Sanders spoke once at an anti-sweatshop gathering at my college, decrying the evils of corporate exploitation of the third world. Then a student from Bangladesh stood up and said that where he came from people were glad to get those exploitative jobs. If the companies had to pay the Bangladeshis more, or accept the costs of better working conditions, a lot of those Bangladeshis would be out of work.
I was glad he was there to say it.
Not that I don't think companies should treat their workers well, but when you talk about companies exploiting third world labor forces, keep in mind that those labor forces are being willingly exploited.
The alternative is that companies will be able to say anything outside of "advertisements" without fear of being prosecuted. I don't see this as a problem. If they lie, someone else can tell the truth. Provided that the company isn't paying for coverage (a good definition of advertising) then access for the little guy isn't the problem.
Paul.
You are lost in a twisty maze of little standards, all different.
Read up a bit more to see the reasoning behind sweatshop workers. Try Naomi Klein.
To save you some trouble, however:
Sweatshop workers are very typically farmers who were making a poor scale of living slightly above the subsistence level in the areas they were before.
The usual course of events is that a large corporation moves in, convinces (or bribes) the government to call the previously unowned land that the farmers were using "public land", and then use their authority as the government to sell that public land to the corporation. The coporation then evicts the farmers, calling on the government to back up their demands with military force if need be.
The corporation then builds a factory on this land and hires the locals to work there - often paying them just enough to maintain subsistence, if not a little lower. These jobs are typically the justification that was used in the first place. After all, people farming and feeding themselves don't add to the GNP/GDP. People being paid less than it costs to feed themselves for working 18 hour days in crippling conditions add numbers to the GNP values.
Of course, you're right in that nobody has "forced" the farmers to work there. No, they were forced off the land they were farming, but that doesn't mean they were forced to work at a factory - why, they always have the option to leave and starve if they want. Just because the only reason they are in this situation is because the corporation moved in doesn't mean they were forced, right?
That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze
Yes, two hundred years of people arguing that it doesn't say what it LITERALLY SAYS is the way you opponents of human rights try to take them away.
Course, eventually, they will be taken away from you as well.
The reason I hate liberals so much, is I used to be one. Then I discovered the fraud that was liberalism-- it is nothing more than socialism sold with the idea that "We support human rights".... in reality, they oppose them.
And thus, I joined the party that really does support human rights, the Libertarians.
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23
Good for you! I love the Libertarians, because they are right on the money about the government intruding in all sorts of areas where they don't belong.
Most Libertarians I know are intelligent enough not to say things like "liberals hate the poor", though. That's just trolling, and you know it. Some misguided liberals don't really think about the way their policies would affect those they claim to protect the poor, but obviously they don't hate them.
(Now take that back!
Aside from a few semiverbal chimps and parrots, all speech is speech by "persons."
("All music is folk music - I ain't never heard no horse sing.")
That speech is publicized through the joint resources of a large number of individuals, acting in concert, does not have any obvious bearing on its constitutional standing.
will it be the "corporate right to keep and bear arms" tomorrow?
I don't know what you're picturing- afraid Nike, Inc. will bludgeon you with a blunt financial instrument?
But certainly all of Nike's executives, stockholders, and (US) workers are free to keep and bear arms, and I don't see why legal ownership of arms couldn't be held through the corporation.
The rights corporations have are derive from the rights of the people making up the corporation. So those people can speak, separately or together, but they don't get an extra vote in presidential elections.
Nice attempt at omniscience. I pointedly avoid stating my opinion on the issue, and you still lump me in with everyone who disagrees with you as "opponents of human rights". Must be nice to be infallible.
If you're typical of Libertarians, I guess I can expect as little from them as I do from "liberals" and "conservatives".
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
As a nationally local example of this, consider a people who flip burgers at a McDonald's restaurant. Since minimum wage varies considerably depending on locale, the same income standards that apply to more expensive areas don't apply the poorer ones. By the same token, we can't presume to enforce North American labour standards on foreign work environments.
Since running these things presumably isn't illegal there, Nike wouldn't stand to lose anything commercially if they just admitted the truth. The only thing that Nike stands to lose is how highly the general public thinks of them, but it seems like everyone already knows the truth anyways, so what difference would it make?
None, as far as I can see.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
I didn't know about Nike's sweatshop practices. I currently own a pair of Nikes (few years old with some holes in them from skating). But I'm not going to buy another pair of Nikes ever again.
After reading about how that guy couldn't get sweatshop on his custom shoes that's gotta tell ya something. They should have gave him his shoes and been done with it. I probably never would have known about the slave driving bastards if it hadn't been for that guy and his failed attempt at having sweatshop written on his custom shoes.
There's not much I can do besides not buy any Nike products. (Maybe blow my air horn right before a few of Tiger Wood's shots.)
Let's see, Nike produces it's products in third world countries for pennies on the dollar, makes a shitload of money by successfully hyping crap, and here's the best part -- consumers are gullible enough to "purchase" the 'free advertising' at top-dollar.
"Look at me, Nike is successful - they're -so- kewl - therefore I must be too! Just look at the swoosh. I love Nike."
Woo! What a mindfuck our society has become.
Adbusters
Sir, I applaud you on your trollmanship.
You are an inspiration to us all through your ignorant waste of time.
Hizzah!
Ah, except that I DIDN'T lump you in-- I just spoke about the people I oppose.
YOu are the one who assumed you belonged to that class.
But now that you say it, you're probably right.
Funny that you noticed your own insecurity more than the words I actually used.
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23
Nope. That's what socialism does-- it ruins the lives of the poor.
Look at the economics behind libertarianism-- its not jsut right, its practical!
When you oppose those economics, you really are saying you want the poor to starve.... as 30 million did in russia, for instance.
Liberals really do hate the poor-- and the ironic thing is they think they are trying to help them.
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23
The Santa Clara story is interesting, but I can find no support for it anti-corporation sites that are more or less quoting each other. In legal sources I see nothing. Also, not only does the decision itself not address personhood, it quotes the Chief Justice as saying, "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of opinion that it does."
It would be error to cite the decision for the proposition of "personhood" -- editorial headnotes indeed carry no weight -- but sloppy citation doesn't mean corporations are believed "persons" thanks to some long-forgotten error. The courts are not that goofy, and believe me every litigant who might benefit would have been raising it in their arguments ever since. All that's left is conspiracy theory.
I don't recall the actual origin or corporate rights, though I assume they for example have been able to sue and be sued from day 1. As for personhood, it may be just a bad metaphor. I am interested in learning its origin.
One sample does not a benchmark make. Furthermore, please don't tell me to shut up about x86 performance when I never said anything about it in the first place.
The sooner we stop treating corporations like full-fledged citizens with all of the rights but none of the responsibilities there-un, the sooner this country can start to reverse the problems like campaign-funding (bribes) that excessive corpratism has lead to.
Either corporations get treated like second-class (or third-class) citizens with respect to their "rights" or they have to start facing serious punishments like the death penalty (forced corporate disolution in cases where the "corporation" was directly responsible for human death).
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
I'd claim there's not a dime's worth of difference between Nike and most politicians, thus no difference between commercial and political speech. It's all done to enrich the speaker at the listeners' expense. Fuck 'em, I say. Then fuck 'em again. And keep on fuckin' 'em.
.nosig
Here is an excellent article on the issues involved with this lawsuit. http://tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/7050
Stupid people make stupid things profitable.
Someone reminded me that this issue is not about corporate speech, rather commercial speech. Everyone in any business is affected, not just corporations, so Nike being a corporation is merely a distraction.
You said "you opponents". This clearly assumes the person you are replying to is an opponent.
Now... one more thread like this out of you, and you're going on my Foes list, because you are an inciteful moron.
Since when is a Corporation entitled to Constitutional Guarantees? They are a non-human entity
Did you ever sell something, a used car or whatever? Did you speak? You engaged in commercial speech. You don't have to be a corporation to be affected, indeed the vast majority of business in the U.S. are sole propietorships, which basically means one person owns it and acts without corporate insulation.
MHO. YMMV. Any resemblance between this post and real persons, or reality in general, was accidental.
Isn't it great, the way you could get someone to do anything for you if they're about to starve and you have a piece of bread? Heck, they're better off not dying, you get what you need, whether it be labor or sex or whatever, and you're doing the right thing.
The Year of Living Dangerously: "Starvation is a wonderful aphrodisiac."
Contrary to what would seem obvious, the courts generally interpret the 1st amendment not as a protection of speech in the common definition but rather protection of the freedom of expression. Lets take some examples:
1) If I call you up and say "I am Joe from IT. We are investigating a potential security incident. Have you noticed anything unusual about your computer recently? And could we verify your username and password?" the fact that I got your username and password by using my voice does not make it any less illegal nor less fraudulent.
2) If I wear a T-shirt with the code on it from DeCSS as a protest against the MPAA, this is more likely to be protected than having the code in machine-readable form.
In essence, what Nike is accused of doing is making factually false statements as a way of trying to sell more products.
you ask "Is there something inherently bad about making money?"
I would answer that no, there isn't. BUT that doesn't make all money-making right either. If a con-artist made money at the expense of someone else by misleading that person, that is fraud pure and simple. And IMO, this is not just an issue of corporate vs personal speech either.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Political advertisement is ALWAYS speech in that it always has political, artistic, or scientific value.
;-)).
;-)
So sorry-- politicians have fewer rights than corporations and it is legal to therefore say anything about them you want (you heard about the 1980's G.W.Bush coverup on the murder investigation of Laura, right?
The point is that speech is an expression of an idea which is useful to our arts, sciences, or politics, and that so the 1st amendment applies
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
I agree with you, just offering a few refinements that I hope are helpful...
Re 1st A., the "malice" standard of regard for truthfulness is for cases of defamatory speech re public figures. For otehr circumstances, mere negligence (carelessness) can yield liability.
An individual can make commercial speech just as much as a corporation. Whether one is a corporatiion is irrelevant.
Didn't know about the sauce and water. Who won?
At issue is something a bit more subtle -- under CA trade law, Nike can get tagged for making truthful statements that through their context are misleading. This is far greater liability that sweeps up many mere mistakes.
Businesses can make pure political statements which may or may not have profit motive. (I also know somne individuals who act only out of profit motive. They have the same rights I do.) Disney spoke up in favor of the Sonny Bono Act, for example (profit motive); an incorporated church group might register its opinions about abortion; NBC might comment on a proposed censorship law; and so on.
It seems to me copanies should held to their word what they write on a product label, and more leniently when commenting on the state of the Union. The line between ad and political statement is getting blurry, esp. with large companies wielding so much economic and political influence today. This is not necessarily a bad thingh; frankly I'm interested in hearing what an employer of 500,000 people thinks of the economy.
Not that the outcome of any one particular case is necessarily predictable, but one tidbit of which Slashdotters should be aware is that the Supreme Court on average overturns 80% of the cases they agree to review. The reason they usually agree to review them in the first place is because they think there might be a problem with the decision.
IAAL
Well, they may have won, Mcdonalds did, after a hell of a long time.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
This is one of the central problems with capitalism.
Corporations should ONLY have rights when those rights don't conflict with the rights of any other person, animal or plant on the planet. We are alive. They are constructions supposedely build to better our environment.
Note the word 'capitalism'. The capital has all the rights. This must change if we are to survive.
please feed me...i'm so hungry...someone pay attention to me!! blah blah blah. homo! jerk! fuck! come on... wait, i got it: "I'M SO SMART!! EVEN THO I'M A LONELY REPRESSED MASTURBATOR, I HAVE A WHOLE LIBRARY OF DWEEBY BACKGROUND TILES!!" BoOie J. PAOg Project Founder, PROPAGANDA Desktop Dweeb Retard Background Tiles [ibiblio.org]
They often say money has no odor... ;) this is one of em where it may.... But think of it seriously .. the sweatshops of Nike this is all well known .. While people here are jobless or loose their jobs Corporate types are eating their steaks.. sipping chanpagne.. you think they care ? ... well then i beleive the problem would solve itself.. but as long as Corporate America is allowed be what it is today, pure greed and no sense of morale .. i wish there was a law to make hiring or opening shops overseas or out of borders that would make things even for workers everywhere.. but who said we live in a world where Corporate America is just and decent .
..
and there is something here.. Are we talking a decent corporate America where the shareholders should have a conscience ? You MUST be kidding... The shops in mexico
Of course not... they cant afford to.They have limos to fuel..IF instead of giving more power to corps we were making them accountable to a decency index ( obviously Nike would have a hard time at that table ) and that there were strict guidelines like this one : You cant hire people out of the country for a salary less than the one you would have to pay an adult here to do the job
it's just as well we call America
the refuge for the greedy the indecent and the People of little conscience but a few large wallets. Sincerely
Dude you are dreaming in pink
Ric
Cuba's not Soviet you fool. The US is.
OK a Soviet is like an american state, the soviets joined together (russia being one of them) to form the USSR, a collection of soviets.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
I think he is making reference to things like the Ministry of Love, which in reality is all about spreading hate.
Why would someone try to help someone they hate? What you say makes no sense. Do you mean "Liberals think they're helping the poor but they end up hurting them"?
However, it would be correct to state that companies could then say anything with impunity, after all, even you and I with the full protection of the first amendment can still be sued for defamatory, slanderous, negligent, fraudulent or other tortuous speech of one kind or another.
Drat. I keep doing this. Obviously the above should read "However, it would be incorrect to state that companies could then say anything with impunity. After all, even you and I with the full protection of the first amendment can still be sued for defamatory, slanderous, negligent, fraudulent or other tortuous speech of one kind or another."
There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
No, you got it right the first time. The reason is that in the U.S., your probability of winning in court is almost directly proportional to the ratio of the amount of money you can spend versus the amount of money the other side can spend.
Frankly, giving corporations any sort of "personhood" was a mistake of the highest order, and is responsible for incalculable damage to the free society that was once hosted by the United States.
Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
The Constitution refers to persons, not citizens. And indeed non-citizen persons have the same constitutional rights in this country, e.g. free speech.
Generally, the rationale behind regulation of advertising is that advertising generally takes place over the airwaves that we all own. Even though the concept has been largely forgotten by now, those who use the public airwaves are supposed to have an obligation to act in the public interest. One such way to do this is to ensure that advertising over this public medium is accurate.
Corporations should be treated like dogs.
Dogs have some rights (for example there are laws against animal cruelty) and yet they don't have the rights as humans.
Dogs have owners and so do corporations.
If a dog misbehaves or bites somebody then the owner is held responsible. If a corporation misbehaves or hurts people then the shareholders should be fined or punished.
Sometimes if a dog is especially viscous and kills somebody then the dog is put down at the owners expense and the owner may be tried and jailed. IF corporations act especially vile then they should be dismantled and the shareholders should lose ALL of their investment.
Dog owners are responsible for care, feeding, sheltering, leashing, controlling, and containing their dogs and shareholders should be responsible for what their corporations do.
Once we actually punish shareholders for the acts of their corporations the corporations will act ethically.
War is necrophilia.
Serious question, obviously reflecting my ignorance.
Can a corporation be sued for tort ?
Conversely, can a corporation bring a suit for tort ?
I am curious just how much like a person they are,
under our law ? [And I am aware that our law is
English common law style, meaning it consists of
written law, unwritten law, and precedent.]
Well, in perspective, Orwellian 1984 would be the Government LYING to people about the true stat of things. Now, free speach is protected, you can say what you want, if it is OPINION. However, politically opinion is the core of politics, right? Well, what if it is lies? Liable, slander? Heard of that?
If you tell hundreds of people that if they shoot themselfs in the head with your special magic personally safe high tech gun, they will live, and soo will all of their friends if they get shot. But if you shoot a criminal, crook, robber, bad guy, evil guy, he will be hurt or dye. You make this claim, and then thousands of people shoot thier best friends to prove how cool and idiot proof thier new gun is... All these people die, and you say "1st Ammendment, I can say whatever I want."
Grow up, I've gave you the most Orwellian example there could ever be.... That's basically ALMOST the plot of 1984. How in the hell is that part of the 1st ammendment, your own right, etc.
Now, your saying, don't blame society for your inabilty to fight for your own right... Well, it's all of society that has to be what it's rights are to be able to keep them valid. If all of society slips into submission (and that is Orwellian), then you damn well can blame them.
What was your point? I think you might have had a good one, but it just wasn't clear to me. Explain please?
No, Nike is accused of attempting to sell shoes by refuting false statements. Nike initiated the suit to publicly deny that it uses sweatshops. It provided ample evidence to refute the claims. The court ruled that the facts were irrelevant and that Nike does not have a right to challenge the accusations because they would profit thereby.
From the NTY article:
"The Supreme Court... agreed today to review a California decision holding Nike potentially liable for damages for any false or misleading statements..."
and
" The California Supreme Court's 4-to-3 decision last May reinstated a private citizen's suit against Nike under California's unfair trade practice and false advertising law."
And
" Because the case has not yet gone to trial in the California courts, the factual basis for the accusations against Nike made by the plaintiff, Marc Kasky, has not been established. "
One would think that a troll would at least RTFA.
Unless you are an astroturfer from Nike...
The issue remains, this is an issue about allegations of fair advertising and trade.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Now, I know that the US Constitution says that speech must not be abridged, and that isn't a question of personhood.
But the question of personhood -- or really, the question of who will have rights -- is a real morass, and it's only getting worse.
The obvious ones: do slaves have rights?
Do corporations have rights? [And I know: when you destroy or take assets from a corporation, you are taking assets from people... but the corporation does have existence and power beyond that of its owners.]
How about: do concieved (but not yet born) Americans have rights?
Do retarded people have rights? If not all, then where do we set the bar? How do we measure the intelligence?
How about: do half-born Americans (head out, fully viable, ready to be killed in a D&C) have rights?
Okay, then: do criminals have rights? Where do we set the bar? Do IP-criminals have rights, for example?
Now, with genetic manipulation: does a 4% human-by-genes pig have rights? How about a 99% human, 1% pig? Or is that going to be called property?
Currently, it would seem that the definition used is largely based on power. In the case of D&C abortion, the baby doesn't have the power to defend itself, and the government won't either. In the case of the RIAA, they have more power, and thus *more rights* than a human being.
The list goes on, and it gets worse, not better.
But I predict that we are going to discover that we need better definitions. Power *can't* be the only factor in determining rights; for if power is the only factor, rights are meaningless.
And of course, the sooner people improve their standard to one that is self-consistent and meaningful, the better.
My suggestion? I'd say that anything that is genetically human should have rights, and attacks against humanity, whether they be through murder, abortion, enslavement, or whatnot -- should be illegal. Genetic modification isn't improving a pig -- it is damaging a person; and thus should also be illegal. Likewise, cloning results in genetic damage (including overweight and overgrowth, which seem to be signs of genetic damage) so it should be considered an attack on people.
But anyone should feel free to talk about and argue the point. I just think that if we don't fix things soon, life in the "free world" may grow rather onerous, and less free.
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
I think you meant "Nefarious".
Not a USian, but I would hope you are right.
Ta.
Just to comment on your sig.
float y = 1/2 * x
thats integer 1 divided by integer 2 to form an integer zero. So it makes sense.
This is a GOOD thing, since it stops unnecessary promotion of types to expensive slow floats.
It was done that way for a very good reason.
here Google
here
You have D&C confused with so-called "partial-birth" abortion ("D&X"). These are completely different. Also, "partial-birth" is a term used only by abortion detractors, most of whom see it as a wedge to introduce broader legislative prohibitions. Late-term abortion is probably one of the most difficult moral quandaries, especially when the choice is whether to save the life of the mother. Most recently, Nebraska's attempt at a ban was struck down by a divided Court in Stenberg v. Carhart, which explores the issues in great detail. I propose no answer but *do* want to keep the terms of the debate straight.
As for the rest of your list of Q's, most have been dealt with for many years. Those that have not will be dealt with as they arise, when sufficient facts are know. Last, corporations are best thought of as a legal entity that may engage in certain activities by law and is accorded limited constitutional protection against manipulation by the state (e.g., freedom of speech).
You certainly did lump him in...
Nicotine free Amish .sig.
If Bangladesh enacted and enforced a law which raised standards for these exploitative jobs, then maybe Nike would move production to another country without any such law.
But that's not the only alternative approach to fighting sweatshops. There's also simultaneous policy, which is a bit like the way in which in the European Union member states are all Directed to pass similar laws at roughly the same time, which businesses actually like to some extent, because it simplifies "inter-state commerce". So SP is a bit like loose World Government, which seeing as we already have a de facto world government system (WTO etc.) I think would be an improvement, as long as it was democratic.
I'm very skeptical that Simultaneous Policy could work on a worldwide basis under capitalism - but I mention it to show there are alternatives in theory.
The other possibility I can think of is consumer boycotts. If Nike lost enough customers to more ethical traders, I think they would push their suppliers to improve. (Obviously that would be hindered if Nike are allowed to lie through their teeth about sweatshops, with their expensive PR machine). I think it would be great if boycotts were combined with mandatory labelling laws in the US on ethical business practices, and/or minimum standards for imports into the US - but even without that, in the future you could have ethical purchase comparison sites for when shopping online (I'm thinking of starting just such a site), and cheap barcode scanning handhelds for when shopping in stores. It would be interesting if we had to fight multinational supermarkets in the courts to be allowed to use these handhelds in their premises - that could carve out a kind of new "right to know", different from existing free expression and freedom of information rights. It would be wonderful if they decided to sit back and let it happen - but somehow I don't think that would happen, since they (and their suppliers) would be afraid of anticonsumerist memes which the ethical purchasing handhelds would spread.
Now there is still a possible downside to boycotts, as you indicated (although I'm not convinced that it's significant given that sweatshop workers who produce for the US are often paid a fraction of the retail price of the product). If the public forces Nike or other companies to improve pay and/or conditions, they might lay off workers in order to increase efficiency.
But that's capitalism, my friend. People lose their jobs all the time. At least those who still have a job have a better job. If you object to that, you must be an anti-capitalist (like me) - but that's a different question. I don't think pro-capitalists have any reason to object to jobs being moved or technology becoming cost-competitive with workers, so why do I hear so often that argument being used by libertarians against anti-sweatshop activists? (I think it's either because they're spineless pro-business shills, or because they don't actually believe the libertarian beliefs they claim to believe.)
(And I would have thought if you drive up incomes that drives forward the economy - that's the whole bogus libertarian argument isn't it, driving down wages will eventually after an unspecified number of decades cause them to bounce back up again, which is "good for the economy" - so why don't we just cut out the pittance pay stage?)
Likewise, if Americans were to start choosing to buy more shoes made in the US, you're moving jobs from one place to another. Assuming no automation, you have N people earning a pittance before, and N people [different] people earning slightly more afterwards. (Given the state of the US jobs market, those jobs are probably going to people who really need them, so they're not "wasted"). A net improvement.
And I wish the libertarians would shut the fuck up with their crocodile tears about poor people losing jobs. It's a totally hypocritical accusation for them to make. I'm a socialist for goodness sake - I believe in running society for people not profit to attain full employment and a decent standard of living for all. And so do many of my anti-capitalist friends and acquaintances. It's sickening and ridiculous to be accused of not caring about worker's jobs by those who care far less than we do - and some of whom spin some weird conspiracy theories about us just campaigning against sweatshops because of some Nietchean (sp.) powerlust, not because we actually care about improving conditions for the poor and oppressed.
Female Prison Rape in NY
C
O
N
T
E
X
T
Muse over it, you may learn something.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
You tied yourself and the cow ran away happily ever after.
What some of these companies do more often than not is also illegal in the countries where they work, bue due to different factors (corruption, weak goverments, geographical isolation) the local law is not enforced.
But legalities aside, there is something called morals. How an executive of any kind can rationalize some of the stuff done to gain a few bucks and still claim to be making an hojnest living is beyond me. If it was not for public pressure of their customers back home (in the form of lobby groups) they would not change their immoral ways.
Heck, they are always trying to get away with lying. Think tobacco companies, or choose your example, I am sure that will you untie yourself you can think of many.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Corporations can make "non-commercial speech" but they are extremely limited in it. First off, you have to look at their audience and the goal of that speech. Second you have to see how they presented their speech.
In the case of a "letter to the editor" if Nike were to present something that they wished to be taken as factual but was proven a lie then they're in trouble. They get in even more trouble if it can be proven that the purpose of that speech was to influence their business position.
Lobbying against a bill is apparently ok. (BTW - it used to be illegal for corporations to lobby.) However, they have to disclose their agents and the moneys being expended in lobbying efforts.
In this particular case it appears that Nike is trying to use the 1st ammendment to allow them to lie. Additionally, these lies are aimed at trying to improve their corporate image and thus increase sales.
So, let's look at the specifics of the case rather than dragging out a bunch of "what if's".
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.