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?
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?"
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.
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.
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>
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.
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 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
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
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.
Another idea:
Import "Tax" as the difference between pay wages.
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.
Your endless braying has got to stop. Please?
Your points are not helped by name-calling and misleading comments.
It never ceases to amaze me how few liberals respect the Bill of Rights, or basic human rights.
That statement is so utterly false. It's sort of like me saying that conservatives have no respect for the dollar bill.
"sweatshop" is probably a meannigless term to you because you have never been poor. And liberals hating the poor? Okay, let me come back at you and say that conservatives hate the rich. Laughable isn't it?
Oh, and you might be modded down, not because of your views (notice that there *are* civil-acting conservatives on Slashdot quite regularly) but because you are screaming on and on incessantly. Like your neighbors dog that barks all night long while you're attempting to get some much-needed sleep.
Cogent? Apparently conservatives (apologies to the intelligent conservatives out there, I don't mean this directed at you) never took English 101.
And on the sweatshop thing-- the liberals hate sweatshops because they hate the poor.
And conservatives, by comparison, love sweatshops because they love the way forced child labor and slave labor line their pockets in a way that legal labor never could!
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 why are there no alternatives? Because after hundreds of years of economic colonialism by the west, traditional subsistence structures have bee destroyed and any chance for competition on equal footing precluded!
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.
Right, because everyone agrees that Schumpeter trumps Marx! Oh wait... Economists actually have as many disagreements as researchers in every other field! It's only the conservatives who routinely say things like "ignore the bulk economic research until the liberals who rule the field stop harping on about economic colonialism" or "ignore the bulk of environmental research until the liberals who rule the field stop harping on about global warming" or "ignore the bulk of international policy opinion until the liberals who rule the NGO's stop harping on about the freedom fighters..."
Seems like you conservatives are always being nailed by the "liberals" hiding under every rock, doesn't it...?
And when you mod me down, realize you're trying to shut me up, just like liberals always do...
You have a right to speak nonsense, but not necessarily a right to be agreed with or even heard.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
>> 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"
In America, the Supreme Court has famously stated that even though a term cannot be satisfactorily defined for purposes of law, the term does not lose its meaning (i.e., obscenity).
I might agree with you on the economics of the thing; the Vietnamese obviously can't go from a society of rural peasants to a modern industrialized society without going through the same growing pains that America and Britain and every other Western country faced a century ago. But explain to me why that means employees can't take fucking bathroom breaks? Paying the Vietnamese a low wage makes sense, but there are documented cases of blatant mistreatment at these "factories."
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
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.
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
For anyone about to buy into what this guy is saying, remember: this is the man who, one post level up, was saying that sweatshops are a good thing for the people, including small children, who work in them.
Such an opinion makes a better argument than I ever could.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
"willingly exploited" is a crazy justification. It is sickening. My whole point is that no one wants to be willingly exploited. Do you? If you had no job and no money, would you work for $6 an hour, knowing that it isn't enough to properly feed and cloth yourself and family? Sure you would, but would you be thankful for that job and the rich people who employ you when you deserve a $10/hour job for a full day of hard work? I don't think so.
People want to be rich, free, and healthy. Short of that they want whatever else life brings them for as little work as possible. If having a foreign company come in and rape the labour force is easier and more profitable than managing the countries finanaces properly, then that is what will continue to happen. 3rd world countries will continue to stagnate and be havens for disease and ignorance as long as we don't pay people for a full day of work, so they can live right by being honest.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
Ah, so your beef is with corrupt governments, right?
IF you follow that thinking, you'll notice that governments in the US do the VERY SAME THING.
They SIEZE LAND regularly, declare it public, and then give it to a company.
And yet, you want them to have even the power to prevent speech for even more people? You want to give the governments more power?
Oh, and by the way, your assertion that all so called sweatshops come about this way is false.
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23
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'
It's amazing how everyone can bitch about how terrible sweatshops are, and how they exploit third-world countries, without bringing up any exmaples. After all, last time I checked China had quadrupled its GDP/capita in the last decade running a "sweatshop" economy - bringing in manufacturing from abroad, attracted by their cheap labor, and then using that to build up their economy to bigger and better things.
Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, and Malaysia have also been "sweatshop" economies.
Nobody is saying it's fun working in a sweatshop. But subsistence farming ain't that great either. And long-term, attracting cheap manufacturing jobs can be the first step to a modern economy, whereas subsistence farming doesn't really lead anywhere.
And hey, if you think I'm a fascist, feel free to read Marx and see what he thought about the feudal farming economy versus the modern capitalist economy. He recognized many of the same problems with manufacturing capitalism (in his own Europe) that we see today in the third-world today, but that didn't stop him from realizing that such capitalism was a necessary step in economic and social development.
Now, sweatshops don't guarantee success. But they can be the first step in building a modern economy. After all, not only can you look at those Asian nations I listed above, but you can look at Europe and America - early factories hired children, had squalid working conditions, etc. Eventually, as society grew more prosperous, they could afford better work conditions.
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.
Somebody please moderate down the parent.
What is at stake is not whether Nike lied or not. It is whether Nike is allowed to lie, under first amendment protections.
This whole shebang about liberals is an irrelevant strawman...
Yep, its better to have a decent wage (Hell - a HIGH Wage by local conditions) than to starve.
As has been pointed out by myself and others, in nearly all cases the only reason that they need to work for Nike's wages in the first place is history: local economies and subsistence methods have already been destroyed by western corporations who now happily offer these individuals employment at what we would consider horrendous wages under what we would consider horrendous conditions.
Were it not for these benevolent corporations, the individuals in these circumstances wouldn't need to choose between starvation and slave labor. But now that traditional subsistence methods and functioning local economies have been destroyed -- now that western corporations have created such dire circumstances that many people have few alternatives, human dignity demands that they be paid a fair wage and that children be excluded from the labor pool.
Period.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
Actually, the reality is that free market economics always works to the poors benefit, and socialism always works to their detriment.
This isn't a straw man-- when jobs move overseas, liberals whine and complain about losing american jobs. they don't get excited tht americans move to higher paying jobs, and the poor people in the other country get the high paying factory jobs (that are too low paying for americans to do.)
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23
And why are there no alternatives? Because after hundreds of years of economic colonialism by the west, traditional subsistence structures have bee destroyed and any chance for competition on equal footing precluded!
Traditional subsistence structures have not been destroyed because of colonialism. Traditional subsistence structures have been destroyed because they have outlived their usefulness. Even were there no colonialism, American grain could still be sold cheaper in many nations than it could be grown by those nations themselves.
Modern economies are massively more efficient than subsistence economies. Do you doubt that America can produce 1000s of times as much per person than it could 300 years ago? The same is true for Europe, and Japan, and is becoming more and more true in South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, Malaysia, China, and India.
So, you know what? Third-world nations are welcome to continue running subsistence economies. Seriously, close the country to all imports, and run land reform. It can be done. But to what end? Then you get your whole population doing subsistence farming, while meanwhile people elsewhere are becoming richer and richer. And you have a population full of farmers, and yet it's still cheaper to buy American grain shipped from 4,000 miles away than it is to buy grain your neighbor grows, because American farming is so much more efficient.
And if you do put up import barriers, you still will have to have sweatshops some day if you want to improve your economy. Course, instead of being run by Nike, they'll be run by your neighbor, but you're still being "exploited."
Now, I recognize the argument that it may be better to put up import barriers and foreign ownership barriers to build your own economy. It's a tricky issue, because there's arguments both ways - for example, Latin America failed with ISI (lots of import barriers) and now seems to be failing with free trade as well.
And I also think that one can make a reasonable argument that Nike should be forced to improve conditions in sweatshops in certain ways. For example, there are certain marginal improvements that can be made to sweatshop conditions that don't really impact the economics of the situation very much (a relatively small loss to Nike that doesn't discourage foreign investment in these countries, but a relatively huge gain for the workers in these countries).
But it is foolish to pretend that because we don't like sweatshops, then they don't have to be. There's really no other path to development, other than starting out moving from farms to really horrible factory conditions.
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.
I'd mod you down because you're an idiot. Not because you're speaking a conservative view point. Granted, alot of conservatives ARE idiots, much like how alot of liberals are ALSO idiots, but there are level headed, clear communicating people on both sides who present clear and cohesive arguments. You, obviously, are not one of them. You stick to the idea that , 'liberals hate this', or 'liberals hate that', like it's even true, or even a bad thing. Sometimes liberals hate things because there's something inherently wrong with it. Even if they are profiteering off of it. However, that is not my point. You make un- Anyway. For profit organizations such as businesses and coporations should have absolutely no right to make false or misleading statements concerning thier products, the market, or anything else that would influence business practices. They are entities that are being trusted to tell the truth about thier practices and products, and being unethical can cost people in terms of money and personal health.
not only THAT, but the First Amendment reads that " Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
So how is it that "liberals" who are arguing at the state level not respecting laws passed at the federal level? The first amendment only applies to federal juristiction. Unless stated otherwise by state, city/township or county law, states have all RIGHT to censorship. It's in the tenth amendment. Read it some time.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
I find it amazing how many people, both conservative and liberal, have no appreciable grasp of the Bill of Rights. As for human rights though, the "liberals" clearly care more about it than you, or we wouldn't be hearing from them all the time. Whether their proposed ideas on the matter would be effective in remedying the situation is a different matter entirely.
This is crap. You know, I know it, Nike knows it, and obviously the "liberals" know it. The term "sweatshop" is defined in Websters as "a shop or factory in which workers are employed for long hours at low wages and under unhealthy conditions." Date: 1892. If you prefer a friendlier sounding word then fine, but you are only deluding yourself. Now this is just silly. Clearly the "liberals" would prefer that the workers made a reasonable wage, under reasonable conditions, on a reasonable schedule. They aren't talking about firing these people. They are talking about improving the conditions under which they work.Neither did you apparently. Nor civics, ethics, or philosophy. They are calling for Nike to improve the situation rather than profit off the backs of the unfortunate. Economically, that is very reasonable. We are not talking about the margins on tennis shoes. We are talking about the economic viability of these people. Their health is an integral part of that. Even conservatives like myself can see the difference. Where have you been?
I've been involved in theoretical and applied economics for nearly ten years. This is not a healthy free market. The supply-demand curve is skewed completely in favor of the wage providers. It is skewed so much so, that people are exchanging their health for wages. The "liberals" would say that price is too high, and I would tend to agree. I believe that it is unethical for Nike to perpetuate this situation when they have the opportunity to improve it. The historical fact that companies do not do this of their own accord is one of the many reasons why we have labor laws in the first place. From a conservative point of view, maintaining markets translates into long-term growth. And without that, we can expect nothing but tennis shoes from these people now or in the future.
No, Voltaire had it right. It's just sad that I have to get lumped in with people like you.
-Hope
This is as obvious trolling as I've ever seen:
...liberals hate sweatshops because they hate the poor.
...few liberals respect the Bill of Rights...
Liberals apparently never took economics.
Moderators, please moderate appropriately, not according to negative psychology like:
And when you mod me down, realize you're trying to shut me up, just like liberals always do
Being able to predict bad moderation doesn't cancel out inflammatory comments, and doesn't count as insightful.
That you call them sweatshops instead of factories is just like the Nazis calling jews rats.
"Arbeit macht frei", eh? (Literally "work makes free", the sign that hung over the entrance to various German concentration camps.)
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.
Unless stated otherwise by state, city/township or county law, states have all RIGHT to censorship. It's in the tenth amendment. Read it some time.
Read the Fourteenth Amendment. It may not be very clear, but the intent, and the application, is that it applies the Bill of Rights to the states and local governments too.
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.
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.
Western corporations destroyed their economies? Can you name one that destroyed the native industries of, say, Vietnam before Nike came there? The truth is, those countries never HAD any industries, so none were to be destroyed. At best, they had a corrupt government, a primitive agricultural economy, and 98% unemployment. Do you think that's preferable to working in a Nike factory?
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.
Simply incorrect -- Kasky pointed to what he claimed were factual inaccuracies in Nike's statements. To wit:
This is kind of tangential to the central question -- whether Nike should be allowed to baldly lie in press releases -- but what the hell. I took econ. Here's how I see the situation: World labor is a buyer's market. The world has a copious supply of misery, poverty, starvation, and need. That means that when corporations go shopping for labor, it doesn't take much searching to find a land so destitute that people will beg to work for twelve hours a day in a toxic cess. There are so many poor countries, in fact, that only the really wretched ones get blessed with factories, and even they have to lower their expectations significantly (this is referred to as "racing to the bottom.")
Now the demand for labor is roughly inelastic -- Nike isn't just going to fold up and stop making shoes if it suddenly has to pay its workers a living wage; it'll just make less of a profit, and the rusted can scavenger you're so concerned about will make more money, which was what you wanted, right?
Recognition of the imbalance in the labor market (there are many more workers than companies seeking employees, and so competition on the worker's side is fiercer) guides American labor laws, which prevent workers from working for slave wages or in toxic factories even if they "want to" (i.e. are being forced to by market conditions) -- these policies don't ignore economics; in fact, they recognize and correct economic realities which you're ignoring.
I honestly have no idea what to make of this business about "liberals." Can you please give me an example of a liberal viewpoint that is correct, i.e. one that you agree with?
If you can't, which do you think is more likely: (a) That the liberals have managed to arrive reliably at the wrong answer to every problem they have ever been presented with, or (b) that something else is going on?
If (b), what?
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.
I'm probably at the other end of the political spectrum from you, but I agree with the points you make.
I do want to state my opinion on one thing though. I hate to sound overly dramatic or inflammitory, but if we don't demand adequate living and working conditions in the places we get our goods we in the first world could probably expect revolution, terrorism, and other such unpleasantness in and from our third world sweatshop countries (colonies?).
However, something that I haven't seen mentioned so far in this discussion is that Nike's competitors are reputed to maintain contracts that require better working conditions then what is present in Nike's own contracted factories.
Also, I have to note that from what I've read, even doubling factory workers wages wouldn't impact Nike's profits since they tend to pay any one of their prime celebrity figureheads (Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods, etc.) more then all of their third-world factory workers combined.
Think about that last one.
-Peter
== Just my opinion(s)
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.
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.
Section one? Seems to contradict the entire 10th amendment. Augh. I wish I was a lawyer.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
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
Section one? Seems to contradict the entire 10th amendment.
The Fourteenth Amendment is later, and is clearly intended to supersede the Tenth when they disagree.
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
The question of exploitation and sweatshops is more about one of an attitude of charity and justice by those in power.
If there is charity and justice, then sweatshops are a good thing -- they are a step towards improving the life of everyone. And sometimes there are costs associated with that.
But if there isn't charity and justice, then sweatshops are a means to enslave, and are a step backwards.
That being the case, more often than not sweatshops that are locally owned and managed will eventually improve, because people cannot often see the person they are hurting every day, without starting to have some charity.
An example of this was CASSCO ICE (now owned by others), the producer of the 7-11's ice in the DC area. CASSCO means "Central Atlantic States Service Corporation", and it was originally a mafia holding company. Anyhow, the mafia bought out a Shenandoah Valley company, and started to milk it and destroy the industry. The people who worked there went to the CASSCO lawyer and complained. The lawyer saw this, turned around, purchased the company from the Mafia, and made it float. What had not been charity, turned to charity.
But when the factory is owned or directed by people in another country... well, it is hard to grow charity for someone you never see.
So I'd say sweatshops aren't all good or all bad. But when a wealthy American corporation regularly uses sweatshops to help their bottom line, then they have an interest in keeping the sweatshop situation going -- and it is more likely going to result in abuses.
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
That's actually untrue - Nike, as a corporation, has a "personhood" which is independent of it's individual members. This is one of the things that people are always complaining about corporate law.
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.
It is a good thing implemented the wrong way. If I told you that I have 1/2 million dollars in my pocket, you would expect that to be $500,000 not zero. Other languages dealt with this problem by using the math operator "div" for integer division.
Exploitation is by definition dirty and underhanded. Because it does some good on the surface, does not make it good hearted, nor good for an economy. There is likely a reason that their economy is in the toilet, and needs to be repaired before we can start "spreadin' the money 'round".
Nike may not be the reason 3rd world countries came into being, but they sure as heck perpetuate their destitution. There is no incentive to build their own industries that they get ludicriously rich off of, because there is a "better than par" wage to be had for very little work for the people lucky enough to get them. But if they were working in the USA, they would be making 4 times what they are.
The whole capitalist ideal is "you get paid what you work for". Well you don't get paid what you work for, because capitalism has major distortions based on geography.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
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
Exploit:
As in "take advantage of". If ID wasn't so damn lazy, they'd make their own featureset.
Just kidding of course.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
The terms "conservative" and "liberal" are often misapplied. In hard-line China, the ruling government is conservative and the dissidants are liberals. In the U.S., the term "liberal" implies something of a social democrat. I would be at the opposite end of that scale.
Yet, being at opposite ends of the political spectrum does not negate anyone's responsibility to act ethically. The distinction is largely one of how to realize a better world. That problems exist are not in dispute, and hence, we would naturally agree on many things. The degree to which these problems become our problem is neither conservatism nor liberalism. It is a matter of personal choice.
Liberals can be devoid of empathy as easily as conservatives. Unfortunately, in capitalist nations, people use "conservativism" as an excuse to rationalize their own personal failings. Many social democrats have their own problems which by my perception stem from an infatiguable sense of worldy guilt. Somewhere between the two, things seem to get done, albeit slowly.
So in a sense, from an uncharitable and rather cynical vantage point, I could be said to reside between unethical apathetics and guilt-stricken manics. Stated that way, you'd probably prefer to be in the middle, too. Conservativism could be summarized as being cautious; it does not have to mean callous.
Destablizing a region is not in the best interest of a capitalist. What Nike and similar companies are doing is plundering, largely because they can. This is not a conservative action, nor is it a capitalist action; it is simply an unethical one. The excuse that the region is already in turmoil is insufficient for my standards. The goal of an ethical capitalist is to develop the region, not exploit it.The proper wage issue is where our political differences will show. From my viewpoint, doubling their wages will not necessarily improve their situation because money cannot readily be converted into what the people actually need to achieve long-term growth. Were they starting from scratch in a virgin forest on an undeveloped peninsula, they would have a better time of it. Instead they're starting in a resource-stripped, morally-destitute, cesspool. It will take more than doubling their income to solve these problems.
More to the point, the amount of money is not the issue, it's the security, both perceived and actual. If someone gets sick, will they work anyway, even at risk of serious injury, in order to avoid losing the job? Absolutely. There is no security, and that's half the problem.
A social democrat might then say that increasing the wages allows the person to save, and this savings is their security. The pragmatist would acknowledge that most will not, and I would stipulate that it discourages people from seeking better work. A position in a factory (or at Bob's Burger Bar for that matter) should be a transitory position, not a final one.
Nike would be providing a better service by investing in infrastructure like housing, education, water treatment, agriculture, and local markets so that over time, there would actually be a demand for skilled labor.
But before that, they need to fix the immediate problems- like not running sweatshops.
-Hope