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."

Reminds me of the RIAA

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps the truth is less interesting than the facts? [theregister.co.uk]

Commercial Speech

[kmweber]

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.

Re:Commercial Speech

[MacAndrew]

Commercial speech had no protection until a Supreme Court decision 30 years ago. Here is a helpful timeline [freedomforum.org]. The theory is that corporations are not real people, and there is a compelling public interest in regulating commercial speech to protect the health and welfare of the public -- such as the FDA requirement that drug makers as least briefly disclose side effects in those uplifting TV ads for their products. With individuals, you would not be able to compel additional speech like that. (There are doubtlessly better examples. :)

If you look at the cases in the timeline -- esp. Hudson -- it may make better sense.

Re:Commercial Speech

[UpLateDrinkingCoffee]

Today it's "corporate free speech"... will it be the "corporate right to keep and bear arms" tomorrow? I think another poster had it right, corporations exist to serve the public good. Since they are entities created by law, then all their rights come from the law, not from the constitution. Considering them "persons" under the constitution is ludicrous.

Personhood

[MacAndrew]

Ah, the variety on the Internet! There's a site just for you [abolishcor...onhood.org]. (Thanks, Google.) More here [thomhartmann.com]. And even more here [reclaimdemocracy.org].

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 ... 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."

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.... :) 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.

Oh yeah... the real issue

[MacAndrew]

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.

Re:Commercial Speech

[gaijin99]

Actually, Bitgeek, you've missed a fairly large and important bit of the Ammendments to the Constitution. They apply only to citizens.

Animals are not citizens, thus are not protected by the constitution. Koko the gorilla, as an example, is not granted free speach rights. The big question is: are corporations citizens? Do they deserve the same rights that are accorded to real people?

Similarly, until slavery was declared illegal, the Constitution did not apply to slaves. Their rights to free speach, trial by jury, etc were not being violated because officially they were not citizens.

Obviously this was not a good thing, and later the Constitution was ammended to outlaw slavery, at which time blacks became legally entitled to the same rights as any other citizen (though this was not enforced everywhere....)

So, no, this is not a simple open and shut case. If corporations are not citizens (and, I for one don't see how they can be counted as such), then they are not entitled to First Ammendment rights.

Also, regarding "communism", I would like to point out that such noted communists as George Washington, Thomas Paine, and Thomas Jefferson fought to have an 11th ammendment added to the original ten that would has specifically required all corporations to serve the public good, as well as specifically barring them from influencing politics in any way, shape, or form.

I'm a First Ammendment fantic, but I don't think it applies to corporations.

Re:Commercial Speech

[kien]

Probably would help get people to "read the damn thing" if you actually posted it.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or 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.

Your argument (that the 1st amendment doesn't distinguish between citizens and corporations regarding free speech) does have merit. Perhaps a bit less venom in your assertions would give them greater weight.

--K.

Re:Commercial Speech

[Yokaze]

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 [stanford.edu] stands?

I suggest using "socialist lies" or "commie lies", this would give your post a more consistent style.

Re:Commercial Speech

[susano_otter]

Corporations aren't real entities, though: they're virtual entities created through a legal fiction to regulate transactions between real entities, and to protect the interests of real entities during these transactions. In a very meaningful sense, the laws that define a "corporation"--and therefore the corporation itself--are to serve the public good.

Congress isn't making any law to abridge the speech of corporations, because corporations don't engage in speech. That they are allowed the luxury of appearing to engage in speech is a convention adopted for the sake of convenience. It's a metaphor that allows us to interact with corporations in an intuitive way.

Corporations don't "exist" in the way that humans--or animals--exist. They are, as has already been pointed out, virtual entities derived exclusively from the law. Congress can't abridge speech because speech is an inalienable, self-evident right. Individuals have rights. Corporations are just a ruleset, implemented for commercial activities. Show me how a ruleset can have "rights", and I'll reconsider your point.

As far as animals go, they may have rights, but with a few exceptions, it'd be damn hard to establish that they engage in "speech". Do animals have the right to free speech? Sure! Would we be able to tell if they used it? No. Why don't you go back home and stop abridging the rats' right to peaceful assembly in your kitchen.?

Re:Commercial Speech

[snarfer]

Saying that corporations can lie to the public without consequence is fighting tyranny?

SOMEone's been listening to a bit too much propaganda, I think!

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Commercial Speech

[DAldredge]

The US Constitution does not grant any rights to companies. It (should) only grant rights to people, not companies.

Re:Commercial Speech

[fermion]

Don't be silly. Not all speech is speech. If you and I are talking about stuff, and I tell you that the Holocaust never happened, or that GW Bush is a drunken drug addict that repeatedly tried to kill children by driving drunk, or that you are an idiot, that is protected speech. You must prove that I meant injury or was in some other way malicious, and that I in fact knew that they statements were false

OTOH, if I sell you a 14K diamond ring, and it turns out that it is pyrite cubic zirconia, you have the right to refund and damages irrelevant of my beliefs. As much as I wish to sell you worthless crap at incredible markups, that would just be wrong,

Re:Commercial Speech

[blibbleblobble]

"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.

Re:Commercial Speech

[hackwrench]

"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.

Re:Commercial Speech

[Photon Ghoul]

Question. If a corporation is responsible for the deaths of others can it be put it to death (and I don't mean being put out of business - there's no correlation between that and human loss of life)? Can a corporation be charged with treason? Can a corporation vote? Does it have feelings? Is it born with inalienable rights? Can a corporation be drafted?

Stop anthropomorphizing businesses.

Re:Commercial Speech

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Can a corporation be charged with treason?

Oh, would it were true...

Re:Commercial Speech

[MrGrendel]

Corporations have been ruled to be legal persons by the courts, but the concept is absurd to the point that the court decisions cannot be enforced. Nor has full enforcement ever been attempted. If you argue that corporations are persons and entitled to the same rights as persons, then you also must accept that corporations have the right to vote, the right to run for office, etc. Corporations should be counted as persons in the census, but they are not.

Corporations also must be subject to the same laws and responsibilities that other persons are subject to. The 14th amendment makes it clear that every person is entitled to equal protection under the law. The courts have consistently interpreted this as meaning that if some class of persons are not held to the same obligations and subject to the same punishments for breaking the law, then those who are prosecuted under those laws have been denied equal protection. Try arguing in court that you cannot be jailed or executed for murder or manslaughter because "corporate persons" are never jailed or executed. That wouldn't get you very far. Why? Because corporations are not the same as people! In fact, we have an entirely different set of laws for corporations (ever hear of corporate law?).

Speaking of rights, doesn't the fact that corporations can be owned violate the 13th amendment? Slavery is illegal. If corporations are entitled to the same rights as other legal persons, then the have the right to be free of ownership. That reasoning doesn't work because it is self-contradictory. Corporations must be owned to exist. Without ownership they disappear. It is logically impossible to make the claim that they are somehow persons. They aren't. They are legal constructs that are allowed to exist by Congress. Congress doesn't have to allow them, but they do in order to encourage commerce and trade. And what gives Congress the power to pass such laws? The Constitution gives Congress the right to regulate interstate and foreign trade. Congress cannot regulate me the way that Corporations can be regulated, because I do not exist to encourage trade. Persons do not exist for any particular reason. Corporations do have to exist for a reason, and those reasons are outlined in corporate charters.

Imagine what would happen if we maintained logical coherence in the legal system and said that Corporations really do have all of the rights of persons. I could go out and form hundreds or thousands of corporations and then on voting day, each of them would be entitled to vote for whoever I want them to vote for. Nobody is going to allow that and if a corporation sued for the right to vote, the courts would probably rule that they cannot be citizens because they are not persons, and thus have no right to vote. Boneheaded rulings that count Corporations as persons when it comes to some things but not for others (usually to benifit the corporation) should not be allowed. They are absurd and self-contradictory.

Fraud under first amendment excuse

[Alomex]

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.

Re:Fraud under first amendment excuse

[xigxag]

IANAL, but it seems to me that a distinction ought to be made between a Nike rep. expressing his opinion, truthful or not, at, say, an interview or a press conference, and Nike taking out an ad in the New York Times and lying about their business practices. It seems to me that the former should be protected under the first amendment as what the linked article calls a "political" statement, but the latter, a paid advertisement, is clearly commercial speech and that it is proper to expect it to meet higher scrutiny.

Apropos of deceptive advertising, does anybody know if those Bloussant [wellquestintl.com] pills really work? And if not, how the heck do they get away with saying their product is effective?

Re:Fraud under first amendment excuse

[jackb_guppy]

When a person is speaking is his company interest - which by assumation is always - he is using commerical speech - period. A company exists exist to make money, so a speech that members of the that company said in reguards to the company is commerical speech, first unless proven otherwise.

That goes for a president of company giving a speech at a gratution or a cock-tail party.

When a person is introducted or refered to by their title, only commerical speach can follow.

Only if someone starts out by saying "My opinion..." or "I think..." is there a change that what follows is what they think and not an add for the company they work for. Same as if you where in court.

Did you ever wonder why everyone started to legal disclaimers on the bottom of thier emails?

Re:Fraud under first amendment excuse

[Dalroth]

IANAL, but it seems to me that a distinction ought to be made between a Nike rep. expressing his opinion, truthful or not, at, say, an interview or a press conference, and Nike taking out an ad in the New York Times and lying about their business practices. It seems to me that the former should be protected under the first amendment as what the linked article calls a "political" statement, but the latter, a paid advertisement, is clearly commercial speech and that it is proper to expect it to meet higher scrutiny.

Well that's the point of this case, to determine just where exactly the line is to be drawn.

Frankly, though, right now it's bullshit. Companies can claim free speach protection, yet organizations such as the EFF and Unions can't. That's a large part of what makes it so messed up. If we WERE going to give corporations free speach protection across the board, we SHOULD give ALL groups of people/organizations the same protections and we don't.

Re:Fraud under first amendment excuse

[xigxag]

Well that's the point of this case, to determine just where exactly the line is to be drawn.

That's partially true, but this case goes further than that. Those on the side of the defense are arguing that there should be no line at all. They are claiming there should be no special category of "commercial speech," that speech by a company should have the same protection as speech by any individual. 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.

The issue is whether or not a special category of less-protected "commercial" speech should exist. Clarence Thomas, in his concurring opinion [cornell.edu] to 517 U,S, 484 (1996), plainly says that, "I do not see a philosophical or historical basis for asserting that 'commercial' speech is of 'lower value' than 'noncommercial' speech. Indeed, some historical materials suggest to the contrary. " See also this article [cato.org] by Jonathan W. Emord which argues in favor of abolishing the distinction. (The seminal article espousing this position seems to be A. Kozinski and S. Banner, "Who's Afraid of Com mercial Speech?", but I can't find it online.)

Re:Fraud under first amendment excuse

[be-fan]

It doesn't have anything to do with liberals or free speech. The US government long ago made the decision that the economy is to be closely watched, and corporations are distinct from individuals. Hence you have all sorts of laws (anti-trust, monopoly, SEC, trading, advertising) that go directly against many of the amendments. Look at it this way: corporations are not allowed to band together and engage in price fixing. Individuals are perfectly free to band together and come to a mutual agreement for their group's benefit.

Re:Fraud under first amendment excuse

[WNight]

You're bringing up a red herring with your "we want poor people to always be poor" line. You can easily be against dangerous working conditions and exploitive monopolistic situations and support lowering of trade barriers and the idea (in general, if not all specifics) of giving poor countries work.

That way you suggest otherwise makes you less credible.

Re:Fraud under first amendment excuse

[BitGeek]

No, it doesn't matter how good the working conditions are-- you guys will always be complaining.

Notice all the liberals complaining about the longshoreman not getting paid a "living wage".

Have oyu heard that term-- "Living wage"?? You guys go on and on about this.

Yet longshoreman-- the ones who want to strike for poor working conditions-- make on average $100,000 a year, and have excellent working conditions.

The liberal agenda has no credibility (neither does the barely different republican agenda) but then- most of your followers aren't in the habit of thinking critically.

Its amazing to see peole making $25,000 a year going on and on about how poor the $100K a year longshoreman have it!

Re:Fraud under first amendment excuse

[BitGeek]

Read the first amendment sometime, why don't you!

IT doesn't make any distinction between opinions or whether someone makes commerical goods or not.

It says "Congress shall make NO LAW restricting..." No qualifications. No quibbles.

Fraud, is a completely different matter- fraud isn't speach, its deception.

There is no allegation that Nike committed fraud here.

Re:Fraud under first amendment excuse

[Alomex]

Read the first amendment sometime, why don't you!

I'll make you a deal: I'll reread the first amendment if you read up on libel and fraud as defined by law and fully consistent with the first amendment...

Re:Fraud under first amendment excuse

[Alomex]

Nike, saying it doesn't have sweatshops is neither libel, fraud, nor a falsehood.

If it is false and relevant to what their products are, then it is fraud. If you don't think lying by a corporation about what their products are is fraud, then I have a "diamond" ring for sale just for you.

Re:Fraud under first amendment excuse

[Scarblac]

Read the first amendment sometime, why don't you!

Yeah, but Nike isn't a citizen of the US, it's only a corporation. Corporations shouldn't have rights.

Got it in one

[vandan]

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.

Re:Fraud under first amendment excuse

[Yokaze]

The problem is, what do you understand under "speech"?

Going by Mirriam-Webster, there are several meanings to "speech". (You must understand, English is not my native tongue, so I like to refer to authorities on that matter).

Am I correct, that when using the word "speech", you have broader meaning in mind?
Speech as in utterance of words.

So, isn't libel and slander protected by the first amendement? I can think of many ways one can utter words, which would considered as unlawful, as you can surely, too.

So, speech seems to me quite open to interpretation.
And since we are human, we're able follow the intent of the constitution, not the letters.

Lastly, no one is prohibiting them to say what they want. They are denying them to use advertisements to do so.
They are still free to express their words, like most people do. Maybe they can get their employees to demonstrate in front of the capitol.

Re:Fraud under first amendment excuse

[aufait]

Am I correct, that when using the word "speech", you have broader meaning in mind?

Yes, the Right to Free Speech includes any communications that convey a message. This is not limited to the spoken word. It includes writings, paintings, and even actions like burning a draft card.

isn't libel and slander protected by the first amendement?

No. Libel and slander are deliberate lies to hurt a person. However, libel and slander are not easy to prove. You must not only prove that the statement is false; but, that the person making it knew it was false. And, you must show that you have been harmed by the statement.

no one is prohibiting them to say what they want.

Actually, they are. The activist is using a law that only applies to corperations. The activist is saying that since Nike "lied" they should be sued. However, the activist can legally lie as long as it is not slander or libel.

Re:Fraud under first amendment excuse

[Alomex]

funny, you're as pathetic as the other AC since you're posting as a sad AC as well.

what? you can't figure who I am?

Their new motto.

[AltImage]

Just Sue It.

As I sit here with Nike's on my feet...

[saskboy]

...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.

Re:As I sit here with Nike's on my feet...

[macdaddy357]

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.

Re:As I sit here with Nike's on my feet...

[josefek]

How ya like dat?

I'd love it... were it accurate [nmsu.edu].

Always, always research.

Re:As I sit here with Nike's on my feet...

[tshak]

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.

Re:exploit?

[Kwil]

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.

Re:exploit?

[jgalun]

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.

Re:exploit?

[MickLinux]

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.

Re:As I sit here with Nike's on my feet...

[saskboy]

Excuse me?
How is supporting locally produced, more socially responsible companies hurting the 3rd world? Perpetuating a doomed economic model of profit on the backs of the poor, is what is despicable, not socialism.

If Nike truely cared about those people, they would pay them enough to live on, not peanuts. I think everyone is entitled to make a profit, but not on the backs of people who have so little that they make me look like a king by comparision.

Re:As I sit here with Nike's on my feet...

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

So you're saying that because capitalism has managed to raise 1/6's of the world's population out of poverty, that it can raise all of it out of poverty? Strange notion, that. Often in dynamic situations like this, past performance is a poor indicator of future ability. Hell, what if it gets close, like 7/8's, or even 99%? Do the rest, since they are a minority, have to live in the stone age, so that your Church of Greed beneficiaries can live the good life?

Oh, and don't forget capitalism as it has been practiced to date, is downright fanatical about wasting all our non-renewable resources.

Sorry, I have to give capitalism an F, and I'm tempted to make that an F-. Any good it has done, has surely been an accident, and one that it always strives to avoid. Again, the world that I live in provides me with only 2 really shitty choices, because idiots like you have more influence than you deserve.

BTW, both capitalism and socialism suck watery turds through a leaky straw. We need some new system, and I don't know what it is. But neither are adequate, and the current favorite simply isn't worthy of support (even if the alternative is worse).

Re:As I sit here with Nike's on my feet...

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Yes, you'd rather those people starved to death, than be "Exploited" by Nike.

I suppose that you're going to invoke the invisible hand and quote your macro economics professor. Something to the effect of comparative advantage. Well, we don't live in an abstraction, and there are significant differences between what nike is doing and what comparative advantage means.

Comparative advantage refers to trade between two countries with differing standards of living, and basically states that one country can make cheap stuff cheaper, thereby affording some expensive stuff that another country makes. This other country usually also buys the cheap stuff that our first country makes. There is an implication that each country has indigenous industry that makes this stuff, not simply a factory that accepts orders.

What nike is doing is price-shopping for its shoe production. This doesn't do a whole lot to help the residents, since the vast majority of the profits go to Nike. Should the factory owners try to improve their lot, Nike can just buy from someone else. Since they don't own the factory, and since they buy from many factories, they can treat one factory's price hike as a minor nuisance.

So, what we get is a country tying up its resources building something for someone else. If that someone else doesn't want it, they can't build it for a third party - they don't have the right. Basically, they're screwed. Notice that I haven't even gotten into the government's role in this (using local army to keep the workers polite and such).

What we need to start this whole invisible hand business moving is for these third world countries to start building stuff that they can then sell to everybody. They also need to bring a larger portion of the business in-house, with local brands and corporate structure. This requires stable, reasonably honest, government officials that actually care about improving the country instead of just the part that they own. Good luck - you're going to need it.

Re:As I sit here with Nike's on my feet...

[MrGrendel]

I'd rather have them be paid a fair wage for their work and have protection from inhumane working conditions. Your statement raises a false dichotemy. There are more situations that can arise than starvation or exploitation. Should I be able to round up homeless people and enslave them using the argument that they are better of being enslaved than starving on the street?

And how does a desire to force corporations to follow laws amount to socialism? And what's wrong with socialism in the first place? Who probably don't even know what socialism is, you just throw the term around in an attempt to devalue the opinions of people who disagree with you.

Re:Exploitation and opportunity

[saskboy]

"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.

NPR talked a bit about this

[clenhart]

http://discover.npr.org/features/feature.jhtml?wfI d=913270 [npr.org]

NOT Speech

[evilviper]

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!"

Re:OH yeah? Define sweatshop!

[Imperial Tacohead]

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."

Corporations should not have free speech

[release7]

The constitution did not grant the right of free speech to corporations. 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.

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.

Re:Corporations should not have free speech

[dsb3]

> Corporations are supposed to server the greater good.

Oops. One too many "r"s. Was that serve or sever?

Seems it's just a "before" and "after" alternative ...

There was no court ruling

[Broadcatch]

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.

Re:There was no court ruling

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Here's your damned ruling:

Santa Clara county vs. Union Pacific [1886] [ratical.org]

There was no court ruling (urg! 2nd try)

[Broadcatch]

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.

Actually, it was more like this:

In the 1886 Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the state tax assessor, not the county assessor, had the right to determine the taxable value of fenceposts along the railroad's right-of-way.

However, in writing up the case's headnote -- a commentary that has no precedential status -- the Court's reporter, a former railroad president named J.C. Bancroft Davis, opened the headnote with the sentence: "The defendant Corporations are persons within the intent of the clause in section 1 of the Fourteen Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

For the complete background, and very interesting reading, see Humans Vs. Corporations [ratical.org] or if that's /.ed, try here [activism.net].

Corporate personhood a goof?

[MacAndrew]

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 [tourolaw.edu] 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.

Re:Corporations should not have free speech

[DavidTC]

Hey, dumbass, Congress can dissolve all corperations tomorrow, without any due process at all.

They sure as hell can restrict corperation's 'speech'.

Corperations are fictional entities, they don't have rights, only people do.

Not 'citizens', as some people keep claiming, but actual people. This, BTW, even included slaves, they had just as many legal rights under the Bill of Rights as citizens. Of course at that point the Bill of Rights didn't apply to states.

Saying that the Bill of Rights forbids congress from restricting the 'speech of corperations' is like claiming laws against murder make it illegal to steal a car in Grand Theft Auto. Corporations are fictional, and so it all their speech.

Ah, you're about to point out that they are made up of people. All well and good...if someone working for a corperation wants to step outside and say something, they can. But if they really want to do that, they stop having the shielding from liablity that corperations have.

Re:Corporations should not have free speech

[MillionthMonkey]

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

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

People here are confusing the two issues (corporations/persons vs. commercial/protected speech). This really has nothing to do with the fact that Nike is a corporation. The same rules apply to an individual selling shoes at a street corner.

The confusion here partially results from the fact that Nike is the most evil of evil corporations, run by penny pinching demons from the underworld that take delight in human misery and suffering. (See? I just made a statement of fact that is most likely incorrect in certain details, but I can do so because it is an example of political speech.) Nike might respond with an assertion that no, Nike was founded by angels descended from heaven who dreamed of bringing exciting new careers to the Third World while putting quality footwear on the tired feet of American consumers everywhere. This would also be a misleading statement, containing factual errors. But would its response be political speech or commercial speech? It's a retort to a political attack I made earlier, so you'd say it's political speech. If anything Nike says could be considered political speech, it is this. However, Nike also has an obvious interest in selling its shoes, and its response will further that interest. So maybe this is commercial speech, right? The court actually bought into that argument. However, the nature of the speech is the real issue, not the nature of the speaker. If you agree with the court that this is commercial speech, you are implicitly saying that Nike is only capable of commercial speech because it makes a profit. The same rules will then apply to the guy selling shoes on the street corner. I'm an honest businessman is no longer protected as political speech according to the court's new standard. (Remember, the distinction between corporations and individuals that keeps coming up here isn't legally relevant.) So this is why you see groups like the ACLU jumping up and down and howling about this.

Typical, a bunch of slashdot posters oppose free speech.

You're painting with a broad brush. None of this is an argument against the restrictions on commercial speech itself. Free speech absolutism is foolish if applied blindly without judgement to all situations involving speech (e.g. spam, etc.). A statement by Nike that wearing Nike shoes has been proven by scientists to lengthen your penis is commercial speech. Nike has a protected right to say this, but they have to include a disclaimer like (results not typical) or something like that. Restrictions on commercial speech are old, older than you are, and you disparage them only because you aren't old enough to remember what life was like without them. Rolling back the restrictions on commercial speech would mean kissing "Results Not Typical" goodbye. The same goes for those fake newspaper ads about wonder diets that say "ADVERTISEMENT" at the top. Freedom of speech doesn't give you the right to lie to people and rip them off. Unless of course, you're in politics.

Re:Corporations should not have free speech

[Chagrin]

• I'm an honest businessman is no longer protected as political speech according to the court's new standard.

I'll nitpick your point in order to present mine: "I'm an honest businessman" is protected political speech; "We do our business honestly" is not. If the CEO of Nike wishes to make claims that he would personally not allow the use of sweatshops, he's allowed to. However, if the company wishes to go on the media (including letters to the editor), this is not going to be protected under the 1st amendment.

Has Nike historically been trying to change public opinion regarding their use of sweatshops? Yes. Just because this single piece of that media blitz was a letter to the editor does not give it protection of speech equated to that of an individual. If they (as a company) were lying, they need to be able to be held accountable.

You can probably see that I'm demonstrating an obvious loophole here in that a company can change the perspective of the speaker in order to retain free speech rights, but this is going to be unavoidable. However, I'd prefer to see that type of loophole used rather than force heightened protection of all speech made by a corporation.

Re:Corporations should not have free speech

[MillionthMonkey]

Yes, exactly. You would be saying that Nike is only capable of commercial speech because its "only purpose" is to make a profit. And you would be wrong.

What is commercial speech is determined by the speech, not the speaker. The fact that the speaker is corporate may be legally relevant in the world of your imagination, but it has never been so in this one. If it were, they could keep their mouths shut and simply pay an individual to speak on their behalf.

If Nike lobbies Congress for more globalization and fewer restrictions on free trade, or advocates dumping napalm on the rain forests in South America to make more room for its sweatshops, this is political speech. Its talk about how great its shoes are and why you should buy them is commercial speech.

Suppose a bill were introduced in Congress that would prohibit the use and/or sale of any software not licensed under the GPL. Are you saying that Microsoft's protests would be subject to the restrictions that are applied to commercial speech? "This will put us out of business! (Disclaimer: the above opinion is that of Microsoft Corporation and its veracity has not been proven, etc.)"

Check this out if you care about the issue

[UpLateDrinkingCoffee]

Check out this [reclaimdemocracy.org] web site if you care about the issue. I have no affiliation with them, but they put into words what I have been thinking for a long time about considering corporations "persons" under the U.S. constitution and granting them the rights traditionally associated with individuals such as free speech.

It's thought provoking reading nonetheless. Check it out...

Re:Check this out if you care about the issue

[UpLateDrinkingCoffee]

Hmm.. I don't claim to have read everything on this group's site (I'm mostly interested in the topic of corporate personhood), but their charter doesn't seem socialistic to me. I'm interested, what did you find socialistic? I'm being genuine here... I would not want to use this web site as a reference for the isssue of corporate personhood if in fact their remaining politial agenda is at odds with mine.

Re:Check this out if you care about the issue

[vandan]

After having read many of your posts on this topic, I have come to the conclusion that you are a rich bastard trying to protect the masses from reclaiming what is rightfully theirs.
You probably also work for Nike.

And what exactly is wrong with the ideals of socialism, anyway. Socialism asserts the rights of individuals over corporations, as opposed to capitalism, which asserts the rights of corporations over individuals.

Now there have been more than one instance of oppressive regimes operating under the guise of socialism that the world would probably have been better off without. North Korea, for example. But then there are a lot of instances of oppressive regimes operating under the guise of capitalism that the world would probably have been better off without. The US, for example. Ignoring these real-world examples, and focusing on ideals, socialism wins hands-down to capitalism, except if you are a corporation, or a rich bastard who has clawed his way to the top of the corporate world.

Let Nike strike back...

[Will_Malverson]

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.

Re:Let Nike strike back...

[rocketfairy]

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.

Re:Let Nike strike back...

[eggcozy]

>If it's truly misleading, then the activists in question should be held accountable for it

I dont see how you can say that the activists' speech is equal to a corporations speech. I would venture to say that the activists in question did not benefit significantly from a lack of Nike sales, where on the otherhand, Nike does benefit from the sales of there shoes.

Why do we have truth in advertising laws? I would think that the main reason is to protect consumers. What's to protect Nike and consumers from inaccurate activist speech? Nothing, but the incentive to lie is much greater for Nike than for individuals who have no stake.

Free Speech

[Sunlighter]

''Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or 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.''

I fail to see any distinction between commercial and political speech in the amendment. The distinction is something the Supreme Court invented in the 1960s.

Spam is not simply a commercial speech issue

[btempleton]

While there is no question that most spam is commercial advertising and some even call spam "UCE", that is a correlation, not an inherent truth. Commerce is just the most common motive for spam, as it is the most common motive for many things.

Spam is sending bulk mail to people who don't know you. The first USENET spams weren't commercial. The first big one told people Jesus was Coming.

Today the most common spam I get offers to transfer TWENTY-TWO MILLION DOLLARS from a nigerian bank account to me. It's not commercial at all, it's a confidence trick. (Already criminal too, but that doesn't seem to be stopping the flood of them.)

So while what the surpreme court rules on commercial speech will have bearing on the attempted spam laws which focus on this, they are going after a symptom, and not the reality of spam.

Re:Spam is not simply a commercial speech issue

[The Creator]

The first USENET spams weren't commercial. The first big one told people Jesus was Coming.

Oh... so porn was first?

Nike's supporters

[MacAndrew]

Many powerful supporters of Nike's position have come forward, and not because they're soft on sweatshops. Representing them is legendary constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe, as well as former solicitor general Walter Dellinger. Moreover [nylawyer.com], "Liberal groups like the American Civil Liberties Union and conservatives such as Sacramento's Pacific Legal Foundation were equally appalled by the decision...." These groups were joined by "32 leading media outlets -- including ABC, NBC, CBS, The New York Times Co. and The Washington Post Co. -- as well as the California Chamber of Commerce and corporate big hitters such as Microsoft Corp. and Bank of America. All want the high court to grant certiorari and reverse the ruling."

This isn't just a question of a wealthy company hiring a lot of firepower. It concerns IMHO a grievously bad decision concerning free speech. As one of the Calif. SC dissents comments, the line between commercial and personal speech has become blurred, and to prevent a corporation from defending itself by denying the same free speech protection accorded its critics is an injustice, and casts a chilling effect on corporate speech we may well want to hear.

What it boils down to is whether Nike should be held to a uniquely harsh standard where not only their words but the context of the words could lead them to court. Sometimes even lies deserve protection, if they promote free discourse, and we're not talking defamation in the present case, more like truth in advertising. The classic remedy for bad speech is more speech, by critics ... and not a lawsuit.

Finally, what the California SC ruled on was not on Nike's guilt or innocence, but rather on the constitutional standard to be applied to it and every single future corporate defendant. Without Supreme Court review, other states might follow this lead.

My prediction (and predictions are a gamble [lawpsided.com]) is that the Supreme Court will reverse, and change some precedent along the way. Commercial speech doctrine is 30 years young, so it is still being developed. Before the 70's it had no protection at all. IMHO the standards for political and commercial speech should be unified into a single standard, with an element of the test weighing the "political" nature of the speech so that ordinary and constructive regulation of commercial speech need not be interpreted as the sort of prior restraint forbidden for political speech.

Re:Nike's supporters

[jackb_guppy]

Nice writing... how much were you paid?

You do not see the difference?

Nike exists but for one thing -- MONEY.

That is it. Nike does not vote. Nike kills someone, it is not killed or locked up. Nike steals millions, it is not punished - it pays a find and writes it off as "cost of doing business"

That is true for any corporation.

When Nike got its hand "caught in the cookie jar", it did like any kid does "told a yarn" - but Nike is not alive - it can not talk for itself - so others did. Others that Nike paid to talk for Nike. It is called "P.R.".

"P.R." is advertising - period. "Spinning" is advertising - actually there is NO speech made a corporation that is commerical speech. If Nike gave $1 Million to a school, everyone would know, why? Because it is good "P.R.", it is good advertising.

Nike's supporters are they - becuase they are "bought". ACLU likes getting moeny to support their goals, just as every polication. Other corporations like the possiblity that they too can "lie" - have you heard of Enron?

Like I asked "What was your price?" P.R. gig, Head of Corporation? Dollars?

Re:Nike's supporters

[aufait]

Nike kills someone, it is not killed or locked up.

You are not consistent in your arguement. On the one hand, you say that "Nike" shouldn't have the Rigth to Free Speech because it isn't a person. On the other, you want to lock up "Nike" if it kills someone. How do you lockup a non-person.

Re:Nike's supporters

[jackb_guppy]

But I am - Nike is not person - it is company.

It can not eat, but has many stomachs.
It can not talk, but fills every media it needs with it words.

If Nike was a person and it kills some one - then it would be locked up... but instead it pays a money and emits no fault.

It is not subject to the same laws as person - nor can it be... so why does it get a pass of Free Speech?

Well, if any corporate speech is protected...

[I Am The Owl]

...then fraud would become a non-crime. Not that great of an outcome, huh?

Re:Well, if any corporate speech is protected...

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Read the constitution sometime! IT doesn't distinguish between corporate and individual speech.

When the Constitution was written, Corporations didn't have the rights of a natural citizen. They were closely watched and never trusted. You will also notice that the Constitution does not distinguish between the speech of people and dogs. This is because, just like corps, nobody back then would mistake a dog for a person.

Re:Well, if any corporate speech is protected...

[DAldredge]

First three words of the Constitution 'We the people'

The Bill of Rights is about the rights of People, not companies. Please read what the founding fathers though when they wrote the Bill of Rights.

Holy Shit This Is A Supar Importent Artikel

[Bowie J. Poag]

A shoe company that thinks its something more than a shoe company complains about other people complaining.

Pass the shotgun, please.

commercial speech has higher responsibility

[fermion]

To clarify, the issue is whether a corporation can make statements that it believes are true, but turn out not be true,. For the individual, most speech is going to be protected. If one makes statements, one, at least in the US, is protected from direct liability of those statements unless it can be proved that they were malicious or purposefully misleading.

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.

a couple of footnotes

[MacAndrew]

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.

how free is free?

[matt4077]

Great to see, that slashdot anti-capitalism beats slashdot information-wants-to-be-free-sentiments anytime.

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.

Nike ID personalized shoes also don't like "sweats

[cant_get_a_good_nick]

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. [shey.net]

Le sigh

[Dannon]

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.

Corporate speech is individual speech

[Paul Johnson]

If opinions are "commercial" speech then it becomes very difficult for you to express an opinion on any company in which you have an interest, especially if that interest is positive. It will be considered to be "advertising". This makes inroads into the free speech of individuals by affecting what they are allowed to say on certain topics, and will also have a chilling effect because of the broad legislation under which such speech could be prosecuted.

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.

I don't understand what all the huff is about

[mark-t]

Almost everyone I know knows that Nike has these "sweatshops", but yet Nike doesn't seem to be lacking for any business. Since these labour facilities are not on North American soil, even though Nike has substantial presence in America, they wouldn't have any reason for foreign work environments to be held accountable to western civilzation standards.

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.

Re:A simple solution.....

[jackb_guppy]

Another idea:

Import "Tax" as the difference between pay wages.

Re:Support the Bill of Rights!

[Photon Ghoul]

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.

Re:Support the Bill of Rights!

[aussersterne]

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.

Re:Support the Bill of Rights!

[jgalun]

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.

Re:Support the Bill of Rights!

[aussersterne]

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.

Re:Support the Bill of Rights!

[aussersterne]

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.

Sheesh! Give It a Break...

[reallocate]

>> I've brought up cogent points here- but I suspect you guys would rather I be denied that speech.


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 /. for rational thought on legal issues.

Re:Sheesh! Give It a Break...

[BitGeek]

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.

Re:Sheesh! Give It a Break...

[reallocate]

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".

Re:Support the Bill of Rights!

[Alomex]

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...

Re:Support the Bill of Rights!

[HopeOS]

Being conservative myself, I will be first person to say that this guy is either a troll or an idiot.

It never ceases to amaze me how few liberals respect the Bill of Rights, or basic human rights.

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.

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 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.

And on the sweatshop thing-- the liberals hate sweatshops because they hate the poor.

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.

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.

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.

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.

No, Voltaire had it right. It's just sad that I have to get lumped in with people like you.

-Hope

Re:Support the Bill of Rights!

[lucasw]

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.

Re:Support the Bill of Rights!

[Chops]

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.

Simply incorrect -- Kasky pointed to what he claimed were factual inaccuracies in Nike's statements. To wit [cfac.org]:

The complaint alleges that, in the course of this public relations campaign, Nike made a series of six misrepresentations regarding its labor practices: (1) "that workers who make NIKE products are . . . not subjected to corporal punishment and/or sexual abuse;" (2) "that NIKE products are made in accordance with applicable governmental laws and regulations governing wages and hours;" (3) "that NIKE products are made in accordance with applicable laws and regulations governing health and safety conditions;" (4) "that NIKE pays average line-workers double-the-minimum wage in Southeast Asia;" (5) "that workers who produce NIKE products receive free meals and health care;" and (6) "that NIKE guarantees a ' living wage' for all workers who make NIKE products." In addition, the complaint alleges that NIKE made the false claim that the Young report proves that it "is doing a good job and ' operating morally.' "

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. ...

Because Liberals apparently never took economics.

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.

you're trying to shut me up, just like liberals always do

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?

Re:Sweatshop economics

[BitGeek]

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.

Re:Support the Bill of Rights!

[BitGeek]

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.)