Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (April 30, 2003)
016401 10% off student discount St°rf| 2065 149 Mol 118 Gate1 Centers: Eugene Ht., Springfield t, Cottage Grove C I o f h i n g , Farnifare, Linens, Beds, Honsewares GREAT rr QUALITY Sororities and Fraternities volunteered a total of 4171 hours of service to the community this year. On April 30th at 7:00pm awards will be presented at Mac Court to individuals and chapters who show outstanding commitment to bettering the local community through voluntary service. For more information on how you can show your support for National § Volunteer Week, call 346-1146. Gome enioy over 100 beers from around the world! All ages! Unlimited sampling! Saturday May 31, 2003 Two Sessions - T5pm • 6-1 Opm - Tickets: $20 advance/$25 door At the Lane County Fairgrounds in Eugene, OR For tickets & more info Call: 888-945-BiiR or beersummit.com a*bizzillion is heading south.... a-bizziliion is heading to The Southtowne Shoppes to join our sister store Boux and we need you to help us lighten our load! m mo/ ,>J- # |J 70 ncci including jewelry ALL OUR WONDERFUL BRAND NAMES SALE DATES 5/3-5/24 541.485.1570 Tues-Sat 12-5:30 RECYCLE Nike continued from page 1 free-speech case that has the busi ness world buzzing and could set a new standard for what sort of pro tection businesses have under the First Amendment. Nike wants to be protected under the First Amendment from being held accountable for statements that may have been false. The Cali fornia Supreme Court ruled that the shoe company can be sued under the state’s false advertising law for statements it made in defense of working conditions in its overseas factories. Nike argues that it should be immune from such litigation be cause the comments it made con tributed to the public debate on globalization and should be protect ed as political speech. The divided California court re jected this reasoning in a 4-3 deci sion. The court ruled consumer ac tivist Marc Kasky could proceed with his lawsuit against the Beaver ton-based company because Nike’s public relations campaign was viewed as “commercial speech,” which can be regulated by the Fed eral Trade Commission for accura cy. In its decision, the California court employed a broad interpreta tion of “commercial speech” to in clude all statements companies make to convince consumers to buy their products. The argument about Nike’s free speech rights is a constitutional co nundrum. The question before the court now is, what does “commer cial speech” mean? Does it simply involve information provided in transactions between buyers and sellers, as Nike argues? Or does commercial speech encompass all the statements companies make to try to influence customers’ purchas ing decisions, such as public rela tions campaigns painting a rosy pic ture of a company’s working conditions in overseas factories? A whole host of outside entities and organizations have joined the debate on this issue, some giving their support to Nike and others urging the court to decide in favor of Kasky. Media organizations and advocates of free speech such as the Society of Professional Journal ists and the American Civil Liber ties Union have filed amicus briefs with the court, urging it not to squelch Nike’s right to speech. But consumer protection agencies and anti-globalization activists, such as the corporate watchdog group Re claim Democracy, argue that the California court ruling should stand because it prevents a consti tutional “corporate right to lie” in public statements. Tim Gleason, dean of the Univer sity’s journalism school, has publicly sided with Nike and the company’s Read more on die Web Check out our online poll and weigh in with your opinion about whether Hike’s defense of its labor practices qualifies as protected political speech or if it should be more strictly regulated as commercial speech, www.daiSyeitierald.cofn right to defend its business policies and practices in the arena of public debate. Gleason published a com mentary in The Oregonian on April 21, arguing that the California court’s decision should be over turned or else corporations wary of litigation will likely withdraw alto gether their information from the marketplace of ideas. “The test for commercial speech that the California court used is far too broad and should be narrowed dramatically,” Gleason said. Consumer advocates argue that the opposition’s claims of a “chilling effect” on the speech of commercial entities are vastly over-exaggerated, and Klasky should be allowed to pro ceed with his lawsuit. Eugene attor ney David Force said local media have portrayed the California court’s decision as a “gag” on Nike, which he argues is ludicrous. Force said Nike is a international corporate giant capable of buying full-page ads in the country’s top newspapers, and being forced to pay penalties under California false ad vertising laws for making untrue statements to the public does not equate to “gagging.” He added that contrary to the claims of Nike supporters, a deci sion in favor of Kasky will not limit national discussion on issues of globalization. “The idea that this will squelch all public debate on sweatshops is nuts,” Force said. Rather than redefining the free speech rights of corporations, the U.S. Supreme Court could choose to side step the issue of commercial speech and dismiss the Nike case on a nar rower, more technical basis. Since Kasky is a private citizen suing on be half of the citizens of California and was not actually harmed by Nike’s public relations campaign, the court could rule he has no standing to bring a lawsuit against Nike. The court should issue a ruling in June, and advocates on either side of the issue say they are hoping jus tices will paint a clearer picture of how much constitutional protection is afforded to businesses and where the line is between commercial speech and political debate. Contact the senior news reporter atjenniferbear@dailyemerald.com.