Subject:
|
Re: Free Speech, again
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 23 Apr 2003 19:34:54 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
278 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> > http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/04/23/scotus.free.speech.ap/index.html
> Nike is within is rights to run ads to influence public opinion as long as
> they are not slanderous or libelous. In fact, in this case, NOT doing so is
> doing its owners a disservice.
Note that the cited article doesn't say what exactly the original suit is
about, exactly. If Nike was lying about conditions in factories, there may
well be grounds for a libel suit there if you can just find the party libeled.
Or a fraudulent advertising suit, for that matter.
Free speech does not convey on individuals the right to lie, nor should it
convey that right to corporations.
If Nike was in fact lying about matters of fact, and not just stating
opinion, their use of free speech as a defense is not good.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Free Speech, again
|
| (...) As I understand the suit, it was asserting that Nike was lying and thus the claim of "false advertising". Clearly this is central to the issue. If they are indeed stating a falsehood and not simply an opinion, then they should be slammed. If (...) (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Free Speech, again
|
| (...) Well, maybe not. (...) They don't themselves have to be citizens for their actions to be protected. Engage in this thought experiment with me. Suppose I take out an ad in the paper that says "Hop Frog sometimes posts mean things in (...) (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
46 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
