Political Speech v. Commercial Speech

The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard a case over whether or not Nike's publicity campaign (consisting of brochures and letters to newspaper editors and college deans, among others) defending itself against allegations that it used overseas sweatshops constitutes commercial speech. Commercial speech, unlike political speech, is subject to substantial regulation, including state truth-in-advertising laws. A California resident sued Nike for violating California's truth-in-advertising laws, and California's Supreme Court -- reviewing the case on the assumption that Nike's speech was indeed untrue -- agreed.

The difficulty facing the U.S. Supreme Court -- and the difficulty that faced the lower courts -- is where to draw the line between political speech, which ought to be strongly protected, and commerical speech, which is entitled to less protection. This distinction is partcularly hard to make with respect to corporations, whose sole purpose for existing is to make money. Unpopular as it may be, I think it would be appropriate for the Supreme Court to draw a bright line in this case and characterize all corporate speech as commercial speech. The speech of individuals and nonprofit organizations, which must meet certain criteria to qualify for nonprofit status, should be strongly protected as political speech. However, the public should be protected from the large concentrations of power represented by corporations insofar as the corporate speech is untrue. This is not to say that corporations should stay out of the public sphere. Corporations are free to say whatever they want, subject to truth-in-advertising statutes. Moreover, corporations which want to promote robust discourse can sponsor third-party seminars and symposiums and finance nonprofit organizations to their boards' content -- and subject to applicable laws.

Fundamentally, this issue concerns the ability of individuals to exercise their free will, unhampered by misleading statements promulgated by entities possessed of considerably greater organizational ability and wealth. The Supreme Court has a difficult decision to make, but hopefully it will decide in favor of allowing the individual to access the courts to protect himself against excesses of commercial speech.

The War in Iraq

Since the war is the foremost topic in most folks' minds, it seems like an appropriate topic with which to occupy my first blog. As a resident of Silicon Valley, I've been inundated with news of various anti-war protests and with the views of various anti-war protestors. While I agree that war is abhorent and should be used only as a last resort, I think many people are naive and misguided in opposing the war in Iraq. Iraq represents a unique circumstance in which our interest in securing a vital natural resource and disarming a dangerous regional threat intersects with our interest in toppling a cruel and inhumane dictator and promoting the spread of democratic values. As such, Operation Freedom should be supported by all of us who believe in American ideals and are concerned for the welfare of the Iraqi people.

Some people have remarked on the differences between our treatment of Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong Il. We use kid gloves on Pyongyang because we know that North Korea has nuclear weapons and because we know that Kim Jong Il wouldn't hesitate to attack Seoul and Japan. Thus, North Korea is a warning to us of what Iraq may become. If we don't disarm Saddam Hussein now, before he develops more sophisticated and deadly weapons, we may be stuck with another madman in a strategic location for the indefinite future.

Peace is a wonderful thing and ought to be sought for by all people. But we shouldn't sacrifice a lasting peace in the future for a fragile, false peace today.