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."
We know politicians and judges are merely corporate puppets, so don't expect any justice in this case.
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
Corporations don't exist to "serve the public good"-- that's communism. Literally.
As usual, you guys oppose the constitution at every turn. Surprise surprise.
Despite all your misrepresentation, the constitution does protect corporations-- read it sometime. "Congress shall make no law..." is very broad-- it doesn't distinguish between people and corporations, or even animals. Thus animals, and every other entity has the right because CONGRESS is BARRED from infringing on it.
NO qualifications.
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23
You got proof they lied?
Since "sweatshop" is a meaningless slur, claiming they don't have them is not a lie.
They have factories.
This is another bit of the liberal socialist agenda-- you must speek PC talk, if you don't, we take you to court.
IF you try to make some money, we take you to court.
If you pay poor people to make your shoes, we hate that, cause we want poor people to always be poor.
Jesus. Go read the first ammednment sometime before you comment on it.
Notice it doesn't say "People and not corporations have the right..." No. It says "Congress shall make no law respecting..."
Thus free speech applies to corporations as well as individuals.
Yes, Liberals hate free speech, we know it. Just stop trying to make a distinction to pretend you don't.
After all, those who support liberty have actually READ The Bill of Rights and know very well what it says.
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23
That website should be titled "Reclaiming socialism"... cause that's what the ideological agenda is.
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23
Yes, you'd rather those people starved to death, than be "Exploited" by Nike.
You probably don't; even realize you're a socialist, do you?
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23
You're supporting ignoring the Bill of Rights because the Bill of Rights has been ignored in the past?
I don't buy that logic.
By the way, it does have to do with liberals- all the examples you gave were implementations of the socialist agenda. If we had full implementation of the bill of rights, they would be ruled unconstitutional.
Note that fraud is not the same thing as free speech, so this idea that if "corporations have free speech, fraud is protected" is a red herring.
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23
Uh, no, its not hard to read, and there's no interpretation necessary!
It is literal and explicit. you should read it sometime.
The 200 years of interpretation are 200 years of government trying to wrest itself free from the bondage the constitution put it into.
And its sad that you people hate your freedom so much that you applaud this rise in tyranny.
But don't lie about the constitution being ambiguous-- its not.
What part of "Congress shall make NO LAW" don't you understand?
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23
Son, you need to take a class in economics.
Socialism's death toll is over 100 million in the last 100 years.
That's an average of a million people a year.
Meanwhile capitalism has raised over a BILLION people out of the poverty level in that same period-- and would have raised even more if socialism hadn't manage to impoverish many of hte millions who weren't killed by it.
Go take an economics class. And stop adovcating starvation as a better situation than "subsistance".
Funny thing is liberal idiots are always whining about "a living wage" yet, for instance, the longshorman's union's average member makes $100,000 a year-- and they are going on strike for not getting a "Living wage"! And you support this idiocy
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23
Coprorations are made up of people.
When you say "Corporations shouldn't have rights" you're saying people shouldn't have rights.
And thus, like most of your kind, you oppose human rights.
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