Its an interesting matter indeed, but, to me, Nikes argument holds no water. Its just an intellectual exercise that tries to confuse people and make them think we are talking about one thing when we are in fact talking about other.
About corporations being persons or not, well, I guess my opinion is very influenced by the legal perspective in my nation, and thus, may not be the most accurate to evaluate the matter when regarding USAs internal perspective.
Nonetheless, to us Brazilians, there are two kinds of person. The natural person meaning the ones that are human and the legal person any not-human kind of entity that has the capacity to posses rights and to assume obligations.
Understanding corporations as having personality is crucial in my understanding, because we have to grant them basic rights, like the right to exist, and the right to have property, etc
If we say that those rights are not inherent that, like some of the counter-argumentation suggests, they have only given prerogatives we will be walking in a very thin line where the government may exercise interference in private property, under the argument that it has only the rights it decides to give.
Also, the notion of the personality of companies is essential in modern commercial laws. See, in the past, when a company bankrupted, the owner would loose everything he owned, down to his underpants. It scared investments quite a lot. Then came the idea that someone could create an accessory personality the company, for example provide it with some money, and that new personality is the one that would be responsible for debts, down to the exact amount of money it owned in itself (as long as there is no fraud).
So, Id say that Nike Corporation IS a person. But does that mean that I agree with Nike? Well, to a certain extent. But I would not fall for their argument here.
See, I do agree that Nike has the right to voice have an opinion, and to voice that opinion as it see fit. But, unlike what they are trying to make it look, we are not talking about the right to voice opinions; we are talking about them making their sales pitch.
See, if Nike wants to publish a Nike Magazine, where they defend, for example, that hiring children in 3rd world countries is in fact a act of compassion, , I am the first one to defend their right to do so. Agreeing with them or not, they are entitled to express themselves, just like white supremacists or doomsday prophets. And, just like them, their penalties will be social, like the antipathy of society.
When we talk about sales pitch, on the other hand, we are talking about something more; we are talking about the proposition of a contract. Now, as the higher purpose of law is to grant fairness in human relations (particularly in commercial relations, when the parts are not in equal conditions the huge financial advantage of corporations is a threat to the contractual equilibrium), some regulation is mandatory. So, its the role of the state to guarantee that they will not use their power to deceive the consumers.
And there lies the difference that Nike is failing to see; the right of speech does not equal the ABUSE of the right to speech. And by using a unilateral repartee that reaches arbitrarily the ears of people, of which many of them may very well not have the capacity and/or malice to filter whats the truth, or likely truth, they are ABUSING, their right, using it to hurt the right that people posses of knowing exactly what they are buying.
See, your right finishes in the minute it hurts the rights of the other. Nike cannot hurt the rights of the consumers by hiding in rights of their own.
That said, I really hope that the supreme court will take the case and crush that one more silly attempt to take advantage of the wording of a certain law to abuse from other people.
Shame on Nike.
Regards
.
What do YOU think? How should the Supreme Court rule and why?
