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."

Comments

Re:Corporations should not have free speech

[BitGeek]

This is insightful? Jesus, read the fucking constitution sometime.

"Congress shall make no law..." Does NOT Distinguish between corporations and people.

Typical, a bunch of slashdot posters oppose free speech.

Fine, work to elimiante human rights.... eventually they will take away a right you actually DO care about.

This is the divide and conquer tyranny we have here-- you socialists hate corporations so much you try to eliminate free speech from them, eventually, it gets taken away from YOU because of the precedent you set!

Excuse me, are you a voting Citizen?

[banzai51]

Since when is a Corporation entitled to Constitutional Guarantees? They are a non-human entity