Nike and right to lie

[arcticpenguin]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-2597471,00.html

Nike countered allegations that its shoes were produced in sweatshops with a series of ads claiming otherwise. The problem? Nike's ads were filled with lies.

Nike was sued by a California resident, Marc Kasky, I think under California law. Nike countered by claiming free speech.

The issue may hinge on a difference in treatment of "commercial speech", which does not receive the same protection under the 1st amendment as 'public debate'.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-2597471,00.html

Nike countered allegations that its shoes were produced in sweatshops with a series of ads claiming otherwise. The problem? Nike's ads were filled with lies.

Nike was sued by a California resident, Marc Kasky, I think under California law. Nike countered by claiming free speech.

The issue may hinge on a difference in treatment of "commercial speech", which does not receive the same protection under the 1st amendment as 'public debate'.

I thought that 'free speech' was the freedom to say what you believed. That is, David Irving may be wrong about his views on the Holocaust, but he really does seem to believe them.

I think this is just as much a comment on advertising in general. Advertising is usually nothing more than distortions and half-truths. These ads were probably seen in terms of being nothing more than the usual tripe served up to us consumers.

[Dancing David]

the argument was that publicity campaigns aren't advertising.... calling Planet X.

[Bjorn]

Some people like to know more about the products they are buying and the conditions under which they have been produced. Just to mention a few examples:

Did children under a certain age work in the factory?
Were (certain) pesticides used?
Does the product contain certain ingredients that I won't or can't eat for religious reasons, or because I'm allergical to them?
Are the products 'natural', ecologically speaking?
Were the animals free roaming?

NIKE is claiming that they cannot be sued for lying about such issues because their ads are protected under the laws about free speech.

Some of the examples I mentioned above are taken very seriously by different groups. Don't they have a right to know that the food is kosher if the producer says so? :(

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by Bjorn

Some of the examples I mentioned above are taken very seriously by different groups. Don't they have a right to know that the food is kosher if the producer says so? :(

Lawyer spin:

The producer gets to communicate that it believes the food is kosher.

This belief is protected under the laws of free speech

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by PygmyPlaidGiraffe


Lawyer spin:

The producer gets to communicate that it believes the food is kosher.

This belief is protected under the laws of free speech Nice one. :p

But in this case, as far as I know the NIKE people admit they lied. They knew the production was not 'kosher', but claimed it was, anyhow.

I could (maybe) forgive someone for serving me non-kosher food by mistake, but deliberately cheating me ... :mad:

[bignickel]

Instead of 'kosher', substitute 'does not contain peanuts'.

Then see how many lawsuits you start getting once word leaks out.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by bignickel
Instead of 'kosher', substitute 'does not contain peanuts'.

Then see how many lawsuits you start getting once word leaks out. Great! :)
Why didn't I think of that example? :(

[shanek]

Here's a more levelheaded look at the Nike situation:

http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=628&FS=Nike+Is+Right

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by shanek
Here's a more levelheaded look at the Nike situation:

http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=628&FS=Nike+Is+Right Shanek, just to make it clear:

I am not questioning the right of any company to produce the goods wherever they want to, or to put sugar or peanuts or pork in their food.

I expect, however, that they tell the truth about such factors when asked. And when they are advertising.

Not mentioning what the products contain or how/where they are produced is one thing - deliberately telling lies another.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by bignickel
Instead of 'kosher', substitute 'does not contain peanuts'.

Then see how many lawsuits you start getting once word leaks out.

Probably none. Unless someone is injured by injesting a food they are alergic too. But I couldnt sue just cause I have a moral objection to peanuts. Plus there are all sorts of laws/regulations that require foods to be properly labled.

I'm wondering if you can lie about products being "Made in America". I think theres some law on that. But I'm unaware of any law requiring compaines to disclose the use of sweatshops. How would you define "sweatshop".

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Tmy

I'm wondering if you can lie about products being "Made in America". I think theres some law on that. But I'm unaware of any law requiring compaines to disclose the use of sweatshops. How would you define "sweatshop".
Supposing you don't put a "Made in America" label on your third world sweatshop-manufactured product. But suppose you put that claim in an ad for the product? Or instead in a press release that you send around to college campuses?

[Tmy]

Ive read both links in this thead and I havent seen just what Nike lied about.

Personally I think they should not be able to lie. A company can sue for slander right? It should work both ways. If I go on TV and say "the workers at Coke pee in the vats" you better believe I'm going to get sued.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Tmy
I'm wondering if you can lie about products being "Made in America". I think theres some law on that. But I'm unaware of any law requiring compaines to disclose the use of sweatshops. How would you define "sweatshop".

Well, Nike pays their workers more than the per capita income, provides for a far safer working environment and the vast majority of their workers feel perfectly safe working there, and fewer hours. How, under anyone's definition, could that be considered a sweatshop? Just because people on the other side of the world wouldn't accept those conditions because they happen to be fortunate enough to live in an area of economic prosperity?

[Michael Redman]

To me, this is easy: If, in an effort to sell your product, you make a statement of fact, you had better be reasonably sure that that fact is correct. Otherwise, don't claim the fact. If you make a false claim of fact (either intentionally, or due to purposeful indifference as to the truth), you are breaking the law. This is a pretty easy rule for any merchant to abide by.

Telling lies to trick people into doing things they wouldn't otherwise do is not protected speech for anyone. The issue of "commercial speech" is not the key here, the difference between fact and opinion is. If you're merely stating a subjective opinion, then you're protected, commercial or not.