Free Speech for Firms Too
It’s tough enough now to pull meaningful answers from corporate executives about anything even remotely controversial. But that information could slow even more unless California courts rule swiftly on the reach of free-speech protections for corporations.
The U.S. Supreme Court, in one of its final rulings of the year, declined to deal with a case concerning a suit against Nike Inc., instead sending the matter back to a San Francisco courtroom. A lot is hanging on the outcome, for Nike, the news media and the public.
The lawsuit, which continues to spark constitutional questions, stemmed from allegations that Nike essentially lied to the public when it vigorously opposed claims that it had mistreated workers in foreign plants producing its athletic gear. In an unusual ruling, the California Supreme Court last year determined that Nike’s public defense violated the state’s false advertising and unfair trade practices law.
Labor activist Mark Kasky, who filed the civil suit, maintains that companies speaking about public policy issues -- or allegations that they mistreated workers -- don’t merit the right to protected free speech enjoyed by individual citizens. If Kasky prevails, corporate officials undoubtedly will resort to the blandest of platitudes, thereby stalling the news-gathering process and important public debate that the 1st Amendment is supposed to protect. Federal courts -- and until last year, California’s courts -- traditionally held that press releases, interviews, letters to the editor and other corporate outlets for public policy issues deserve more protection than advertising for, say, detergent or sedans.
In the case at issue, news organizations quickly put Nike’s press releases and public letters about overseas workers under a microscope, balancing them with critical input from labor representatives and human rights proponents. That is as it should be. Once a company is on the record, the public and the media should do their best to determine whether the company line is truthful.
Microsoft Corp., Tribune Co. (which owns The Times), the AFL-CIO and the Public Relations Society of America, among others, were disappointed last week when the U.S. Supreme Court unexpectedly dismissed the case on procedural grounds. No matter what jurors in San Francisco decide about Nike’s labor practices, the courts must reaffirm the distinction between commercial speech and constitutionally protected free speech.
