Tennis Forum banner

1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
618 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
How do people think the Supreme Court should rule?...


Supreme Court to Consider Nike Ad Case
Wed Apr 23, Reuters News

By James Vicini

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In an important free-speech case for businesses, the U.S. Supreme Court will consider on Wednesday whether Nike Inc. can be sued for false advertising over a publicity campaign to defend itself against accusations that Asian sweatshops made its footwear.

The high court will hear arguments on whether Nike's statements about its labor practices deserved full First Amendment protection under the U.S. Constitution and whether the lawsuit against it should be dismissed or go forward.

The closely watched case, which has attracted a large number of briefs on both sides, could help determine the extent of free-speech protection for businesses when companies issue news releases or make other statements to defend themselves.

The case began in 1998 when Marc Kasky, a consumer activist in San Francisco, sued Nike under California law and claimed the company misled the public about working conditions for its Vietnamese, Chinese and Indonesian laborers.

The lawsuit claimed Nike knew workers were subjected to physical punishment and sexual abuse, endured dangerous working conditions and were often unable to earn a "living wage," despite workdays that could be 14 hours long.

It claimed the Beaverton, Oregon-based company mounted a false advertising and public relations campaign, portraying itself as a "model of corporate responsibility" in an effort to boost sales.

Nike denied the accusations and argued the case should be dismissed because all the statements cited in the lawsuit were protected as free speech. It said its statements were part of an international media debate on issues of public interest.

But the California Supreme Court ruled that Nike's corporate statements could be regulated as commercial speech, allowing the lawsuit to proceed to trial.

At the nation's high court, Nike has been supported by a number of big corporations and business groups, the news media, public relations executives, the American Civil Liberties Union (news - web sites), and the AFL-CIO, the nation's largest group of unions.

Kasky has been supported by California and 17 other states, by four members of the U.S. House of Representatives and by environmental, consumer and human rights groups that oppose sweatshop conditions.

Solicitor General Theodore Olson, who will argue in support of the company, said the First Amendment prohibited people who have suffered no harm from suing over allegedly false statements. He said the First Amendment barred Kasky's lawsuit, which rested on a "novel legal regime" that can inhibit free speech.

Paul Hoeber, a San Francisco lawyer, will represent Kasky. In a written brief, he argued that Nike's statements were subject to the laws regulating false or misleading commercial messages, and said the lawsuit should be allowed to proceed.

After the arguments, the Supreme Court will deliberate, with a ruling expected by the end of June.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
34,218 Posts
It's classic Nike deceit to have shifted the focus fron whether the allegations are true to whether it's protected speech. Thank God for San Francisco PC peacetards and fucktards (even though they=owned)! :p
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
34,218 Posts
mike moran - 12:51pm Apr 23, 2003 (3034. 6173/6196)

nike "corporation"

simply have nike take us on a tour of all their shops,...are you kidding. their are by far one of the worst corps. on earth....but empty headed, easely influenced, diaper wearing headaches of america and the world keep buying the junk.....have nike give us a tour,...ya right...michael moore tried for 2 years. there is more security around there shops then the central bank....quite buying the crap....theres better shoes for less money out there....made in europe and america . i am an american, 37 years old and how messed up is it when i see it plain as day and alot people just go oh dhuuuuuuuu...be like mike weak weak weak....my country is so weak and as an add-on debate all you want,..just dont buy the sweat from 13 year old girls,..debate is fine, but also killing us know. we know whats up with nike. tell people you know just dont do it now. i seen a post a mile long on speech and free and what constitutes and blah blah blah blah...i know its right to do that, but when half the people are done debating and 1 month later when junior spoiled needs new shoes mom or dad go right to foot locker or whatever is passing themselves off as an american biz and does what,,.....buys nike' hey make sure u check the sales at imperial-mart ooh ah wal-mart and support america,...dumbasses (from the BB on the findlaw site above). (BTW, this guy says "blah" more than CKB)! :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
34,218 Posts
DeuceDiva said:
ugh! i am so ashamed to admit that i once shared a brunch table with mr. hoeber...
Paul Hoeber, a San Francisco lawyer, will represent Kasky. In a written brief, he argued that Nike's statements were subject to the laws regulating false or misleading commercial messages, and said the lawsuit should be allowed to proceed.
  • Based only on the short account of him above, I would be PROUD to have! (No wonder Da Boi is so proud of San Francisco)!
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
13,390 Posts
rd878 said:
Paul Hoeber, a San Francisco lawyer, will represent Kasky. In a written brief, he argued that Nike's statements were subject to the laws regulating false or misleading commercial messages, and said the lawsuit should be allowed to proceed.
  • Based only on the short account of him above, I would be PROUD to have! (No wonder Da Boi is so proud of San Francisco)!
not if he took the last slice of smoked salmon you had your eye on....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,628 Posts
Be honest here, when was the last time you bought a pair of Nike shoes that lasted over 4 months without needing repairing.

Nike clothes and apparel are sh*te anyway, crap designs, awful quality.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
13,390 Posts
JoeyWinson3.0 said:
Be honest here, when was the last time you bought a pair of Nike shoes that lasted over 4 months without needing repairing.

Nike clothes and apparel are sh*te anyway, crap designs, awful quality.
couldn't agree with you more...except in one area. by the time they fail you, another new version comes out that makes repairing the old one most undesirable...but yes, their designs AND their quality...suck!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,628 Posts
I havent actually bought any Nike gear before (I do own a Nike Bandana but it's tie dyed now so u cant see the logo) but my dad who has done about 16 marathons says that Nike shoes are the worst he has ever bought, if you are serious about a sport they just fall to bits.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
618 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
well i am 100% an adidas fella (and that was well before Marti came on board!) but the anti-Nike crowd here seems to have an agenda I don't particulary care for so hope Nike wins this battle or otherwise another cans of worms will open for these snaky scumbag lawyers who really are extortionists on their best day
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,105 Posts
What an interesting case! Looks to me as if Nike's speech on this occasion was more political than commercial (albeit with an underlying commercial motive), so it probably should get constitutional protection. Whether it is true or false is beside the point. The issue is the boundaries of constitutionally protected speech.

*waiting with interest*
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top