 | | Re: Free Speech, again —Larry Pieniazek
| | | | (...) 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 (...) (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Free Speech, again —Frank Filz
| | | | | (...) 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)
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Free Speech, again —Dave Schuler
| | | | | (...) But I don't accept that a corporation has an opinion, nor can any executive of that company have a pure opinion regarding the company. Everything, in effect, must be taken as an effort to serve the bottom line, since that's the whole purpose (...) (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Free Speech, again —Larry Pieniazek
| | | | | (...) Suppose you were right... So what? This case isn't about free speech the way I read it. It's about false advertising. If it would be wrong for you as a person to deny you owned a sweatshop when actually you did, it owuld be wrong for Nike to (...) (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | | |
