Commercial speech is speech used my companies in attempt to engage the audience/potential buyer in engaging commerce with their product or business. This form of speech is interesting because it is intended to persuade and captivate viewers by giving some sort of an appeal to the product/service. Commercial speech is kind of a grey area because it is applying the First Amendment to companies/businesses rather than people. The Supreme Court for many years took the view that commercial speech was not protected by the First Amendment due to concerns caused by exaggerated claims made by businesses and the effects these claims could have on people. However, the Court now recognizes certain protections that the First Amendment provides to commercial speech. Although commercial speech is protected by the First Amendment, to an extent, there are several institutions within the United States that regulate commercial speech.
Although this seems pretty straightforward and it would make sense that that commercial speech is regulated due to its nature - some companies struggle with this concept and believe that is a violation of their rights. In 2003, the Supreme Court dismissed a claim by t Nike that a publicity campaign to counter allegations that it uses sweatshops to make its products was protected by the right to free speech. Many companies watched how this case played out because they recognized it would set precedent for potential cases/court actions down the road. The opposing side alleges that Nike's campaign was a deception to consumers because Nike knew about the work conditions. Nike argues that their statements defending the wages and working conditions of their oversea factories were protected by the First Amendment. Although the Court decided they would not rule on this it would have been interesting to see how it would have played out and would have lead the discussion of how we censor companies with issues that concern sensitive topics. I believe that IF Nike had knowledge of the conditions in the overseas factories then they would be blatantly dishonest with customers simply for economic gain and this type of behavior by a company should not be allowed, especially when regarding humanitarian issues.
Teather, David. “Nike Loses Case Over Freedom of Speech.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 27 June 2003, www.theguardian.com/business/2003/jun/27/usnews.advertising.
- Get link
- X
- Other Apps
- Get link
- X
- Other Apps
In relation to commercial speech and the people who regulate it, such as the FCC, do in fact give some room for some exaggeration in advertisements and commercials. So with that being said how would that be able to tie into the First Amendment? If the FCC is the one who usually oversee the commercial speech then at what time does the government come in and say that the FCC should've cracked down on a specific commercial or add? In regards to Nike who had a counter campaign to the claims saying that it had sweatshops how would the government play a role in that and saying that they need to own up to what is happening in other countries in that aspect?
ReplyDeleteNike regardless of knowing or not knowing should have tried and figured out who was making their products in the first place! Commercial speech is fun to think about because in the end we're creating laws around our laws in order to make money. Even with the 'laws' it's interesting to see what some companies get away with STILL in their commercials or advertisements. Do you think its fair to create a commercial, like coca-cola, showing a party of people happy drinking coke, and someone sad on the side. Someone from the party brings him a coke and he is now included in the fun. Showing this shows that coke is enjoyable with friends and draws people together. BUT this has nothing to do with the taste of coke, or any FACTS about the product at all, do you think this is covered under the 1st amendment? Being able to switch the perception of what a product can do for an individual?
ReplyDelete