Nike v Kasky
...attempt to sell consumers its company, also with the underlying purpose of selling merchandise. But Nike’s effort to sell shoes shouldn’t be in the same category as its efforts to defend itself against accusations of violating basic rights of its workers. Nike’s response to its negative criticism is exactly the kind of thing the First Amendment is supposed to protect. But California state law allows, and California Supreme Court ruled that anyone can sue a corporation for false advertising or bad business practices. Errors in facts don’t necessarily lose the protection of speech when used in such a back and forth discussion. Nike’s critics have taken full advantage of their right to unhindered, open debate. Why should one side have full speech protection while the other is restricted, and even punished. It would be very dangerous to stop companies from defending themselves in order to try to further protect consumers from possible misleading speech. The First Amendment is supposed to ensure open public debate, not stifle it. Because Nike is a corporation that sells a product, the California Supreme Court holds them to a different standard when discussing speech. But not all that companies say should be interpreted as commercial speech. Nike was not advertising its shoes, promoting the sales of its athletic gear or even stating how the use of Nike products will increase your physical performance. It was trying to convey that its company is not an immoral or unjust one. Commerce is defined as the buying and selling of goods. So commercial speech would be speech for the purpose of buying or selling goods. But at no point during its PR campaign did Nike attempt to sell any goods. We can all recognize advertisements that are trying to sell a product, especially when they are on television or in a magazine. But defining corporate speech when it is not in one of these media is a little harder to do. Opponents in the Nike case would like to say that because Nike is a company that sells products, anything it says can be interpreted as an attempt to sell more of its products by selling the image of the company. But surely not everything every company says is a deep hearted attempt to gain more profit. There must be some form of political speech that companies can rely on. Defense from criticism should be one form. The inability to strike back from negative statements for fear of legal ramifications should not, and cannot, take place. It could possibly muzzle businesses already hesitant to speak in the public arena. You can’t improve bad or false speech by restricting or censoring it, only by expanding and exposing it. This will not get companies to speak more truthfully, it will stop them from speaking. So the heart of the debate is how far the stretch of commercial speech goes. On one hand you have a broad net thrown over all corporate speech, and then you have a specific definition giving you specific cases. Everything a person says isn’t an attempt to get something that person wants, just as everything companies say isn’t an attempt to draw in new customers. Supporters of Kasky in this court case use the definition of the First Amendment and the Constitution to back their case. They state that corporations were never mentioned in the Constitution and that speech rights cannot be extended to them since companies cannot be viewed as persons. They state that we have rights as human beings whether government exists or not, and that corporations are created by the government which don’t have rights, but privileges. The First Amendment is supposed to support the flow of information and encourage debate. But debate, they say, is skewed because views don’t necessarily reflect those of the workers of the company, but the overall concept of the company. Plus corporations can use their moneys to drown out the views of individuals. The First Amendment is supposed to encourage debate, but how is silencing half the parties included in that. By restricting what corporations say, you have left the field of fair and equal debating. With any group, not all members must agree with decisions to make them accepted by the group, as is with Nike and its views of ...