When the right to free speech was granted in the First Amendment to our Constitution, there was no need to elaborate further on the meaning of that right. The meaning, at the time, was as simple as being able to speak your opinion free of the possibility of being persecuted for that belief. However, in the corporate world that now exists, there is an urgency to define the absolute terms for that freedom as the liberty to say what one wishes could be misconstrued as the liberty to mislead and deceive others. .
In the case in question, Nike v. Kasky deals with the right of corporations to speak freely as a commercial entity versus defending social commentary or attack as a political statement. The legal question at hand concerns whether or not commercial expression should be defined to include nearly all of the public statements a company and its employees make concerning their business. Commercial expression was defined in 1942 by the Supreme Court as expression which promotes a transaction (Valentine v. Christensen, 316 U.S. 52, 1942) and was given minimal protection under the First Amendment. Since then, a number of cases have helped shape the amount, type and at what level corporations may speak out freely. This case is one that will also help shape that picture, as it will likely define more specifically that actual documents which may be included in a corporation's right to free speech. .
The start of Nike's public relations defense campaign came about in 1996 as a response to the allegations that there were unlivable conditions in the factories they subcontracted to produce their world famous sports footwear. Three factories in Southeast Asia (Indonesia, Vietnam and China) were suggested to be employing many young female workers who were forced to work for seven days a week, not paid overtime, exposed to toxic chemicals each day in the workplace, as well as paid below the minimum wage.
