Please read the linked article:
http://tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/7050
from ever lovin’ Tom Paine.com, may the Good Lord bless them and keep them all the days of thier lives…
My own position is a calm and moderate “NO! NO! A thousand times, NO!”
But read the article, and let 'er buck!
Are you kidding?
Since when do even individuals have a right to acquire wealth by false pretense (i.e., lying)? Anyone can be sued to undo a transaction that was entered into with one side being deceitful.
Where in the world did this ridiculous premise of “a right to lie” even come from?
Uh, a right to lie? In the case of a corporation, I think the proper term would be “a right to defraud”.
In other words, NO.
Well, in this instance, I think the assertion is that yes, in matters of fraud, there is no such right. But if the lie has no direct material impact on the lie-ee, then no “fraud” as such exists, it becomes simply a matter of public relations and image.
Nike does not wish to be seen as a vile, ruthless exploiter of sweatshop labor. Hence, in thier eyes, they have the right to pretend otherwise, and thus keep customers who are inclined to act on conscience.
I’ll point out that Kasky got this info about the problems with overseas working conditions from Nike’s own shareholder reports. The decision may have the “chilling” effect that Nike no longer will release this data to the public thereby making these cases harder to prove in the future.
Also note that the No. California ACLU supports Nike on this.
We’ve already had a discussion of Kasky on the boards. I’ll try to track it down.
Sua
Actually, IIRC, there is at least a limited “right to lie.”
It’s called ‘puffery’. The Merrian-Webster defination is: “exaggerated commendation especially for promotional purposes.”
And, as I’m remembering things from business law classes, it is allowed in advertising and the like because anyone with any sense would know that any ad is a lying sack of shit and you’re an idiot to pay any attention to it.
Perhaps not exactly what the textbook said but I’m working from memory here.
That’s a bit different. If the ad lies to you and induces you to purchase something you might otherwise not, thats one thing. This is a lie that suggests the company involved is a better “citizen” than the truth would admit. They’re not saying Nikes will make you run faster, but that Nike is made up of moral and respectable people.
I haven’t any particular comment on the primary issue raised by the OP. I am certainly not in favour of anything that encourages or allows deception.
However I find the tenor of the linked article as regards corporations a bit tedious and deceitful of itself. It suits our respective consciences to pretend that corporations are big bad nasty out of control robots that have nothing to do with us humans.
Actually, corporations are just legal shells through which humans operate for various self serving reasons (self serving for the humans, not the corporations who can’t think and don’t care). Of course, the humans are very largely people who have pension plans and bank accounts. That is to say, you and I.
But people just don’t want to hear that they are collectively the corporations they despise, and that they benefit from the policies of the corporations that they decry. Far safer for one’s mental well being to pretend that corporations are distant evil beings for whose acts we bear no responsibility.
While fraud is not excusable (lying for personal gain), don’t be confused and think that the following comment is defending Nike.
If I were a descendent of Thomas Paine, I’d sue that web site for libel.
Thanks for letting me get that off my chest.
Individuals have a right to lie – just not for defrauding, when under oath in court, or in other circimstances where lying is explicitly proscribed by the local law.
Since a corporation is considered an “artificial person” under the law, I’d think they’d have the same rights (unless the corporations code of their State explicitly says otherwise).
SuaSponte must have gotten sidetracked. The recent thread that he refers to is: Is a press release a commercial? - California free speech case. I’ll stand by what I said there, too. Nike has no right to “lie” to the public, but members of the public have no right to recover against Nike unless they have suffered actual damages as a result of that lie. No damages = No cause of action.
Are certain lies, even if they don’t relate to things like product features, tantemount to fraud? There’s something appealing about that. If Nike is making that statement, it’s because they believe that image will attract certain customers.
If I buy the sneakers under that pretense–let’s say it’s specifically because of this lie–how are Nike’s actions materially different than lying about a product feature? In either instance, one advances a falsehood to get your $$$ when the firm would otherwise not get it. My damages are that the satisfaction in supporting a good corporate citizen that I “purchased” was an illusion. Can a product feature for me be whether something was manufactured in an ethical manner? I think so. And if that’s valid, it’s reasonable to expect that corporations will not lie about such things.
I believe that’s a critical difference with “regular,” non-corporate lies. When John Doe lies to his lodge brothers that he never misses church on Sunday, I don’t believe this is tantemount to fraud, not in the sense mentioned above. However, corporations can feel free to lie about their weight or to tell you that tie looks great, just like the rest of us.
No!
but often they just hide information, is that better?
how do you pass a law against it?
there is now a commercial for cars with a Harrier jet. that jet is 36 year old technology but the auto industry comes out with NEW, IMPROVED cars every year. is that a LIE?
we have been putting up with bullshit from corporations for too long and the government is in their collective pocket. what do you expect to do about it now?
Dal Timgar
Calling a modern Harrier jet “36-year-old technology” just because the movable jet exhaust nozzles were invented in the 1960s is like calling an automobile “19th-century technology” because the internal combustion engine was invented in the late 1800s. I guarantee you that a Harrier jet built today will have many improvements over and above a Harrier jet built in 1970.
I think this is great news.
It shows that people’s awareness of companies like Nike’s practices has finally ‘piqued’ their attention.
As for the action itself - I cannot see how Nike don’t realise that by petitioning every court in the US for the right-to-lie will just ensure everyone thinks that everything say say IS a lie…
Idiots
TTFN
JP
Amazingly enough, Bob, I agree with everything you said. 
I thought I felt a disturbance in the force.