In Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products, the Court found that to determine whether the speech is commercial, it must contain three distinct elements: it is meant to be an advertisement, it makes reference to a particular product and the speech is economically motivated. (Bolger v. Youngs) Although Nike`s speech lacks some of those elements, I believe that it falls into the category of commercial speech rather than political speech. In 1997, Nike hired a consulting firm that carried out an independent review of labor practices in Nike factories. Following the review, a consulting firm issued a report stating that all Nike factories have favorable working conditions and that there is no evidence of widespread abuse or mistreatment of workers. (Kasky v. Nike: Just the Facts) I think that the purpose of this report was to improve Nike`s marketing position by creating a positive image of the company in public perception. Although this speech was not commercial per se, the ultimate purpose of the speech was economic by its nature. Nike was exercising its First Amendment rights, while pursuing other objectives, just like any profit organization would do in their place. That is why I think that the speech of companies should be held to a higher degree of scrutiny; the companies should not be able to hide behind the shield of First Amendment. In my view, the idea of commercial speech must include not only "speech which does ‘no more than propose a commercial transaction.'",(Bolger v. Youngs) but most of the statements made by profit organizations. Even though it might seem that some of the words or statements made by such organizations do not attempt to promote or advertise a certain product, it is important to keep in mind that practically all public company speech has “hidden” advertising agenda.
Works Cited
Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products Corp. 463 U.S. 60 (1983)
“Kasky v. Nike: Just the Facts” Reclaimdemocracy. Web. 6 February 2016.
