Subject:
|
Re: Free Speech, again
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 23 Apr 2003 20:42:49 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
256 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
> >
> > I am as big a proponent of free speech as anyone I know,
>
> Well, maybe not.
>
>
> > but I don't
> > accept that corporations are citizens protected under the first amendment.
>
> 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 lugnet.off-topic.debate, and from time to time acts in a way
> that baits others into responding rashly".
>
> That's protected speech, ne? Subject only to civil suits regarding
> slander/libel, I certainly can post that ad if I want. And since it's true,
> we're pretty safe on that score too.
>
> Now suppose you decide that's a pretty good ad, and email me saying you want
> to pay 1/2 the cost because you happen to agree. Still protected speech.
>
> What if we incorporate for the express purpose of running more of these ads?
> Still protected speech.
>
> What if we issue stock and go public? Still protected speech. Now it's
> subject to the stockholders deciding they don't want us running ads but it's
> still the stockholders driving.
>
> A corporation need not have independent existance since its actions are at
> the direction of its owners.
>
> 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.
Corporations often run self-serving ads. Mobil use to have a regular paid
ad in the Los Angeles Times where it spun things to it's own advantage. I
stopped going to Mobil stations because they got pretty thick for a while.
And I think that is what people need to do: vote with their money.
How much can corporations lie and be held legally accountable is another
thing. You can say your product cures warts when you know darn well it
doesn't, but there will be legal repurcussions. Can Nike claim that they
don't use sweatshops when they do, I don't know. I rather imagine that the
claim is that they are operating within the normal parameters of the country
in question, so it isn't a sweatshop, and that is certainly within the realm
of difference of opinion (even if I don't agree with them).
In an opinion on the L.A. Times Op-Ed page, the Vice-President of RJ
Reynolds complains how his company has to pay for a California Excise tax
that he claims is being misused to villify his company (he specifically
cites claims that his company lies and markets to children - which if you
read carefully, he never denies). But go to the RJ Reynolds web site and
they are trying to whip up indignation over the excise tax because they
claim the smokers are paying the tax! Ironic how they whine about being
villified for lieing, and lie in the process. But where is the line drawn
on misrepresenting the product? I'm not sure it's there: it's just up to us
put on our bull-detectors. Generally speaking, I'm more comfortable erring
on the side of free speech than in over-litigation. I'll have to look more
into the Nike thing to get a better idea, though.
-->Bruce<--
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
