Ms. magazine  -- more than a magazine a movement

SIGN UP FOR MS. DIGEST, JOBS, NEWS AND ALERTS

FEMINIST WIRE NEWSBRIEFS

ABOUT
SEE CURRENT ISSUE
SHOP MS. STORE
MS. IN THE CLASSROOM
FEMINIST DAILY WIRE
FEMINIST RESOURCES
PRESS
JOBS AT MS.
READ BACK ISSUES
CONTACT
RSS (XML)
 
feminist wire | daily newsbriefs

April-25-03

Supreme Court Hears Nike’s Sweatshop Abuse Case

The US Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday in a case that will determine whether Nike can be sued for statements in which they denied the use of child labor and substandard wages in sweatshops in Asia. Nike countered that these statements are protected as free speech under the First Amendment.

The case involves a massive public relations campaign by Nike after activists launched boycotts and public information campaigns about Nike’s use of Asian sweatshops in the mid-1990s. Marc Kasky, a San Francisco-based activist, filed a lawsuit against Nike in 1998 charging that the company’s claims amounted to false advertising - though not in the traditional sense because the claims were not directly about Nike’s product. Rather, Kasky argues that Nike violated a California law that requires corporations to truthfully disclose how their products are produced, according to Carl Mayer, a lawyer who submitted an amicus brief in the case opposing Nike.

Kasky’s case was sent to the US Supreme Court after California’s Supreme Court narrowly ruled last May that Nike could be liable for false public claims about working conditions in its factories abroad, according to the Christian Science Monitor. With the Bush administration on its side, Nike is arguing that because the statements were not produced in formal advertisements they are protected as free speech, according to the Guardian.

If the Supreme Court sides with Kasky, his case will go back to trial to determine whether Nike did indeed make false claims about its business practices, the Los Angeles Times reports. Global Exchange, a San Francisco-based social justice organization, reports that Nike sweatshop workers, many of whom are women, are paid substandard wages, are not allowed to organize independent unions, and often face health and safety hazards.

“This case is extremely important, because the court has never really tackled the difficult issue of how you draw the line between commercial speech … and what we think of as traditional First Amendment expression,” explained Ann Brick, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Northern California, according to the Monitor. The majority of justices on the California Supreme Court decided that Nike’s speech was commercial, because it was “likely to influence consumers in their commercial decisions,” according to the Washington Post.

Media Resources: Washington Post 4/24/03; Christian Science Monitor 4/23/03; LA Times 4/24/03; Common Dreams 4/21/03; The Guardian 4/23/03


© Feminist Majority Foundation, publisher of Ms. magazine

If you liked this story, consider making a tax-deductible donation to support Ms. magazine.

 

 

Send to a Friend
Their
Your
Comments
(optional)


More Feminist News

9/12/2014 Violence Against Women Act Turns 20 - Saturday will be the 20th Anniversary of the groundbreaking federal Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). Passed in 1994, VAWA was the first piece of federal legislation to specifically address domestic violence and sexual assault as crimes and to provide federal funding to improve local response to violence against women, including training and resources for law enforcement and judges. President Barack Obama on Tuesday issued a proclamation commemorating the VAWA anniversary. . . .
 
9/12/2014 Indiana Woman Charged With Feticide For Premature Delivery - An Indiana woman has been charged with feticide after she delivered prematurely and sought hospital treatment. Purvi Patel, 33, sought help at an emergency room for vaginal bleeding where it was discovered that she had delivered prematurely at home. . . .
 
9/11/2014 Missouri Legislators Pass 72-Hour Abortion Waiting Period Law - Missouri legislators voted late last night to triple the state's current 24-hour waiting period to 72 hours, with no exceptions for rape or incest. Governor Jay Nixon previously vetoed the bill in July, calling it "extreme and disrespectful." Missouri's House voted 117-44 to override the veto, and then the Senate used a procedural move to stop a Democratic filibuster of the bill and vote 23-7 to complete the veto override Wednesday. "The only purpose of a 72-hour waiting period is to attempt to punish, shame, and demean women who have arrived at a personal decision that politicians happen to disagree with," said the president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights in a statement. . . .