Subject:
|
Re: Free Speech, again
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 23 Apr 2003 21:08:25 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
348 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
> Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> 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 they were truly stating an opinion, then they
> should be free to say whatever it is that they said.
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 of a corporation. As such, any material
distributed externally by the corporation--and relating to the
corporation--becomes a form of sales literature. I know that financial
entities are required to work that way, for example.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Free Speech, again
|
| (...) 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 (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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 (...) (21 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
|
|
|
|
