ABSTRACT
Once in a great while, the U.S. Supreme Court grants certiorari in a case that both sides anticipate will lead to a decision that will significantly alter the First Amendment landscape. Nike v. Kasky (2003) was such a case. It began in the mid-1990s when Nike came under fire from critics after news stories in several media outlets claimed that some of firm’s athletic shoes and apparel were manufactured in sweat shops in China, Vietnam, and other Asian countries.1 The reports pointed to allegedly adverse work conditions in the factories, including low wages, poor safety, verbal and sexual abuse, and exposure to toxic chemicals. The company, known worldwide for its “swoosh” and “Just Do It” trademarks, fought back with a massive publicity campaign that included press releases, a Web site, full-page newspaper ads, and letters to newspapers, university presidents, and athletic directors. None of the publicity attempted to directly sell any of Nike’s products. Instead, Nike vigorously tried to counter the accusations by arguing that its products were made in safe and comfortable work environments and that employees were paid fair wages.
