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."
Perhaps the truth is less interesting than the facts?
http://discover.npr.org/features/feature.jhtml?wfI d=913270
"The First Amendment's freedom of speech guarantee should apply to individuals, not corporations."
A corporation is legally the same type of entity as an individual (or a married couple) -- it's the context of the speech which is important, not who said it.
If I stand on a soap-box and say that communism sucks, that's 1st amendment (or the equivalent in your country). If I stand on the same soap-box and say "these are genuine gold rings I'm selling", then that's regulated commercial speech (i.e. you face punishment if you can't prove it's true)
Same person, same soap-box, different types of speech. And corporations are the same as individuals, that's why you're allowed to take them to court.
"A corporation is legally the same type of entity as an individual (or a married couple) -- it's the context of the speech which is important, not who said it."
In reality, that isn't true, and it shouldn't be true. On many points of law it is true but not for all of them. Corporations are not human beings, and should not have the same protections. Taking something to court is not the only legal operation, you know.
Nike shoes are made in third-world sweatshops, often, by children. New Balance shoes are made in the USA by adults, and fit better too. Maye they'll use that in an advertisement.
How ya like dat?
Actually, no one is really claiming in court that activists made misleading statements. Nike has staunchly refused to claim in court that the activists were misleading, because they know they'd lose the case that way. They're defending their right to lie about their products and mislead the public into buying them; there is no parallel.
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....
How ya like dat?
I'd love it... were it accurate.
Always, always research.
rev.jsfk
Read up a bit more.
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, and then use their authority as the government to sell that public land to the corporation. The corporation then evict 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 how the government/corporation justify this move of removing the people from their farming to begin with.
Of course, 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.
That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Sounds familiar?
The preamble states the intent of the whole U.S.-constitution.
>Oh, and this idea that the founding fathers wanted corporations to serve the prublic good is bullshit-- more liberal lies about the past
"General welfare" is one of the goals of the U.S. constitution. This of course, is totally contraire to the idea of companies serving the public good. Especially, if they serve "We, the people", and not "We, the shareholders".
Besides, what a wonderful reasoning: "Liberal lies", "first ammendment fanatics", "Anti human rights".
Do you have any idea for what liberalism stands?
I suggest using "socialist lies" or "commie lies", this would give your post a more consistent style.
"Between strong and weak, between rich and poor [...], it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free"
It's very possible that the parent poster believes that NB's are made in the USA because it's very possible that his pair was. However, a larger portion is made in China.
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
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.