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
10/12/2015 Report Finds Texas' HB2 Increases Abortion Wait Times - A new report released by the University of Texas at Austin, Texas Policy Evaluation Project found patients seeking abortions in Texas have experienced an increase in wait times since the passage of HB2, the 2013 Texas omnibus anti-abortion bill that attempts to cut off abortion access by requiring abortion providers in the state to fulfill medically unnecessary ambulatory surgical center requirements and secure hospital admitting privileges.
More than half of 42 clinics providing abortion in Texas have been forced to shut their doors since HB2 passed two years ago, leading Texas women to wait up to 20 days for a first consult at one of the surviving 18 reproductive health clinics operating in the state, the second most populous in the nation. . . .
10/9/2015 Federal Judge Orders Anti-Abortion Group to Cede Footage to NAF - On Tuesday, a federal judge ruled that anti-abortion group Center for Medical Progress (CMP) and its leader David Daleidan must turn over all previously unreleased "sting" videos and outtakes of National Abortion Federation (NAF) meetings the group obtained surreptitiously as part of a smear campaign against the abortion provider.
U.S. . . .
10/9/2015 Women Scientists Receive Less Funding Than Their Male Peers, Study Finds - According to a new study published by the Journal of the American Medical Association, male scientists receive twice as much financial support to kickstart their careers in science and medicine as their female counterparts, an early career inequity that could limit professional opportunities for women scientists throughout their working lives.
Conducted by Health Resources in Action (HRiA), analysts studied 219 biomedical researchers who had applied for early-career grant funding at 55 New England hospitals, universities and research facilities between 2012 and 2014. . . .