Case 2.1 Nike

Case 2.3 Nike and Commercial Speech

1. How should the U. S. Supreme Court have decided the case? Should the California Supreme Court’s decision have been struck down as unconstitutional? Are Nike’s statements political speech or commercial speech? Discuss

The right to have freedom of speech must be upheld. Every individual in this United States has the right of freedom of speech. This was one of the founding principles the United States was built upon. That being said, there must be a line drawn between freedom of speech, and a corporation blatantly lying about its product/service for financial benefit.

California’s rulings entailed “California court held that Kasky could sue pursuant to a state consumer protection law because Nike’s publicity was commercial speech, meaning the company could be sued for deceptive advertising” (Cavico & Bahaudin, 2009, pg358).

There is a major difference between an individual’s freedom of speech; stating of his or her opinion (even if that opinion is factually incorrect), and a corporation knowingly lying to consumers to increase profit.

Nike’s statements are clearly commercial speech. Nike had one goal with its untruthful marketing, which was to create a cleaner image to increase sales.

2. Pursuant to Utilitarian ethics, which legal approach produces the “Greater Good” for society? Discuss.

Utilitarian ethics deals with making decisions based on creating benefit for decision makers. There must be a strong understanding of “free speech”. People protesting outside of the white house to reduce taxes would be considered a form of free speech.

Nike deliberately misleading consumers, in the effort to create a positive image for profits, is not free speech. This is a case of a multinational, billion dollar business, misleading consumers.

If we change some of the facts in this case study, one could paint a different picture. If Nike was actively monitoring its outsourced labor; making...