CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Supreme Court to Consider Nike Ad Case
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Supreme Court to Consider Nike Ad Case

post #1 of 16
4/23/03 at 3:34pm
Thread Starter 
<a href="http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hilden/20030415.html" target="_blank">On April 23, the Court will hear oral argument in a case that pits California environmental activist Mark Kasky, who is suing on behalf of the general public, against Nike. Kasky claims that Nike violated California's laws against unfair competition and false advertising when it made what he claims to be an inaccurate series of public statements regarding its treatment of the factory workers.

Nike has raised a First Amendment defense to these allegations. It argues that, because its statements are part of an ongoing political controversy and dialogue - in which critics have taken Nike to task for factory working condition, and tried to organize boycotts against it - they are political speech. It therefore has urged the Supreme Court to hold that its statements deserve the full protection of the First Amendment.
</a>
Reply
post #2 of 16
4/23/03 at 3:49pm
This is a HUGE case and I can't wait for Nike to get taken down. They won't, of course. The Court will rule in favor of business over truth.
Reply
post #3 of 16
4/23/03 at 3:55pm
I heard Nike's attorney on NPR this morning. It's been a long time since I got pissed listening to the radio. He was going on and on about how companies shouldn't be liable for information that one member of a society finds questionable. Just blathering on and on and on. He never once acknowledged that Nike was lying, willfully and knowingly.

I think I'm going to buy New Balance from now on. Who makes their stuff?

edit: poor grammar and typing....

Reply
post #4 of 16
4/23/03 at 4:04pm
"They also noted that the majority was too quick to assume that Nike was speaking only to its consumers (after all, it wrote letters to newspapers read by the general public, and bought space there), only about its products (not larger questions), and only for the purpose of making sales (not for any broader aims).

As the dissenters noted, it seems, instead, more reasonable to assume that Nike wanted to speak not just to consumers, but to every person who may have heard its critics' charges; wanted to rebut those charges however broadly they reached; and wanted not just to sell more shoes but to protect a now-tarnished image. "

Why else would Nike want to protect a tarnished image but TO SELL MORE SHOES? Nike would publish ads claiming they gang rape workers if they thought it would sell more shoes.

And does Nike take ads out in papers or magazines read by the general public? OF COURSE. All people who read the paper with the advertisment would be considered potential customers by Nike.
Reply
post #5 of 16
4/23/03 at 4:08pm
heh, It's actually funny that Nike has the balls to use this kind of defense. It's a political statement to exploit workers? They've really got nowhere to go with that.
Reply
post #6 of 16
4/23/03 at 4:17pm
It's only a crime if Nike wants the people who are reading their protected speech to buy Nike products. I'm sure that was never a goal for them.

Seriously, who makes New Balance? Poor kids in Asia?
Reply
post #7 of 16
4/23/03 at 4:37pm
I love interesting court cases, and this seems like a pretty good one. I'd tend to go against Nike, but at the same time, it wasn't straight shilling. It was political spinning.

While of course Nike wants to sell shoes, the purpose of these letters and such wasn't to sell shoes, but to protect their image. Which then leads to them selling shoes.
Reply
post #8 of 16
4/23/03 at 4:45pm
The New Balances I'm wearing right now say "Made in USA with Imported Materials".
Reply
post #9 of 16
4/23/03 at 4:51pm
The shoe itself, and the laces, are imported. But they thread the lace THROUGH the shoe-holes here in the states!
Reply
post #10 of 16
4/23/03 at 4:53pm
But only the bottom holes, the rest are up to the consumer.

Reply
post #11 of 16
4/23/03 at 4:53pm
Quote:
Devin moves 4th dimensionally:
This is a HUGE case and I can't wait for Nike to get taken down. They won't, of course. The Court will rule in favor of business over truth.
I agree with you. Unfortunatly, on both points.

Big buisiness has gotten out of hand. They have powers the founding fathers would have never dreamed of giving the government... but, then again, so does the government. I'm not going to go off on a rant here, so I'll just say that our nation needs to temember that personal freedom and responsibility are what made this country great.
Reply
post #12 of 16
4/23/03 at 4:54pm
Thereby allowing the shoe to be manufactured by good ol' Americans!
Reply
post #13 of 16
4/23/03 at 5:13pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Devin moves 4th dimensionally:
This is a HUGE case and I can't wait for Nike to get taken down. They won't, of course. The Court will rule in favor of business over truth.
Taken down how? If truth triumphs? Will people suddenly stop buying Nike porducts if Nike is indeed making stuff in sweatshops?
Reply
post #14 of 16
4/24/03 at 11:00am
It hasn't happened yet.
Reply
post #15 of 16
4/24/03 at 11:08am
Quote:
Nelson (Sing Blue Silver):
Quote:
Devin moves 4th dimensionally:
This is a HUGE case and I can't wait for Nike to get taken down. They won't, of course. The Court will rule in favor of business over truth.
Taken down how? If truth triumphs? Will people suddenly stop buying Nike porducts if Nike is indeed making stuff in sweatshops?
Taken down = lose
Reply
post #16 of 16
4/25/03 at 12:55pm
Just like Ticketmaster... oh... wait. Nevermind.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Supreme Court to Consider Nike Ad Case