The Rest Is Silence

June 9, 2003

New at Reason: Does a corporation have a right to gild the lily when defending itself? Should the first amendment protect press releases? Jonathan Rauch considers how abridging Nike's right to free speech might have wider implications than the company's foes realize.

Comments

|6.9.03 @ 1:44AM|#

Interesting commercial speech question.

Nice take.

fyodor|6.9.03 @ 3:34AM|#

While I ultimately agree with the article, and it does make some good points, it fails to be as useful as I would have liked. For instance, while it gives examples of what is or isn't commercial speech, it doesn't describe a universal rationale for separating the two. Also, I would think a skeptic would make hay by claiming that corporations *should* think twice about making false statements and that there would be no chilling effect for statements that could be backed up. Vague references to inquisitions are not likely to convince someone that we mustn't have laws that constrain corporations from lying about their practices.

Mind you, it's not beyond my own ability to imagine what's wrong with leaving "truth" to the courts. I just think it could have been a more powerful article had it taken on the central issues more directly. As it is, I don't know if I would forward it to someone who staunchly disagrees, which is my litmus test for a good article.

Of course, there's always space considerations....

Maurkov|6.9.03 @ 7:09AM|#

Arguing that corporations require the right to lie in order to defend themselves is specious. Those who would attack a corporation are not allowed to lie either. That would be slander (or libel). Everything a company says in any medium, regarding its self, products, or practices is commercial speech. Deceptive commercial speech is fraud.

Still worried about chilling effects? Look at how libel laws have muzzled tabloid press.

|6.10.03 @ 10:00AM|#

a 1990 Cavalier? Maybe *Reason* should be investigated for slave labor.

fyodor|6.10.03 @ 11:19AM|#

Maurkov,

Please note that there's a big difference between accusing someone else and defending yourself. And as far as I know, there's currently no law against lying to defending yourself, except under oath in a court of law. You're going to have to do better to convince me we need to start criminalizing defensive speech just it's defending a business practice.

david f|6.10.03 @ 11:51AM|#

sorry, all, i can't get beyond the giggles when reading the phrase "gild[ing] the lilly". snicker. (gilding the dew on the lilly?)

maturly,
drf