Freedom of speech has been one of the most appreciated and valuable rights given to the citizens of this country. It has gone through many changes. These changes have been designed to not only benefit the greater society but also strike balance. The United States Supreme Court has expanded the use of this right to commercial entities. Commercial speech has been viewed as a limited right from its inception. Commercial speech has been challenged in different cases. The issue in Kasky v. Nike, Inc., 27 Cal.4th 939 (2002), is that can a commercial entity use this right to disseminate misleading and deceptive information regarding its labor practices in other countries? According to the United States Supreme Court, commercial entities have "limited commercial speech" rights that receive Constitutional protection.
This Note will analyze the Kasky v. Nike, Inc (hereafter Nike) case. The first part will cover the historical development of the commercial speech. The second part will analyze historical development of commercial speech. The analysis then will dissect the majority's view. Then there will be an analysis on the dissent thoughts. At the end, there will be a discussion on commercial speech. This discussion will analyze the social benefits of limiting commercial speech.
I Creation of Freedom of Commercial Speech
The importance of freedom of expression can be found in The United States Constitution and California State Constitution. The U.S. CONST. amend. I, º 1., in relevant parts, provides, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishmentà 'abridging the freedom of speech,' or of the press; or the right of the peopleà." This fundamental right can similarly be found in CAL. CONST. art. I º 2(a)., which, in relevant parts, provides, "Every person may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of this rightà." In its historical development of "commercia...