|
by Lizard_King 07/13/2003, 6:25pm PDT |
|
 |
|
 |
|
Senor Barborito wrote:
Hard to say here. I don't see any ethical argument against Nike having free speech - but at the same time I know that large corporations have historically proven themselves untrustworthy in what they say. The point is, I think that if legislation were to be made for the 'spirit' of the First Amendment Nike would get quashed (as they will almost always use their free speech to quash legitimate, honest speech by citizens), but that the letter of the law protects them.
It's a tough call for me personally but I know the court would almost certainly rule for Nike in the end. I don't like it, but I understand why it's important. Ultimately it's probably better if corporations go on lying with every word and consumers keep on distrusting them by default because it leaves history with a very clear picture of who stabbed whom in the back.
See, it is all well and good that corporations be taken to task over their advertisements when they are caught lying, but Nike defending itself from accusations that it is essentially a slaveholder by purchasing a page in a newspaper is a in a wholly different category from commercial messages. Everybody says their piece about Nike, and ultimately people decide for themselves who is right. It is absolutely absurd to sue them on this, and even worse on the part of the Supreme Court that they did not take this case when overturning Cali Supreme's 4-3 decision should have been a no-brainer (as most controversial decisions by that worthless body are). |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
