Hello. I need help with the attached assignment. It’s due tonight. Can you please review the attachment and let me

know if you can do. Thank you  ATTACHMENT PREVIEW Download attachmentMust be in your own words.Read the case studies identified below. Prepare a single document that answersthe specified Discussion questions listed at the end of the case study.The body of the paper will be no more than four pages—a maximum of two pages and aminimum of one page—for each case study question. It must be typed in a 12-point font,double spaced, and conform to APA formatting standards, including a cover page, in-textcitations, and a reference page. The cover page and reference page are not counted towardthe four-page maximum. ALL sources (including the textbook) must be properly cited within thepaper and on the reference page. At least one outside source foreachcase study questionmust be included, and include information from the textbook. Use the DeVry University Libraryonline athttp://library.devry.edu(Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.to selectyour sources, using either EBSCOhost or LEXIS-NEXIS.Do not use Google or similar searchengines or references from sources such as Wikipedia.CASE 5.3:Free Speech or False Advertising?With annual sales of over $16.3 billion and annual proFts of around $1.5billion, Nike is one of the giants in the sports apparel business, and itstrademark “Swoosh” logo is recognized around the world. However, for acompany its size, Nike directly employs surprisingly few workers—onlyabout 22,000. That is because overseas contractors manufacture all Nike’sproducts. These independent contractors employ approximately 600,000workers at 910 factories, mostly in China, Indonesia, Vietnam, and Thailand.Like many other Frms, Nike outsources its manufacturing to take advantageof cheap overseas labor. But the price of doing so began getting higher forNike in the late 1990s, when anti-sweatshop activists started campaigningagainst the company, charging that the third-world workers making itsproducts were exploited and abused. Activists on many college campuses,for instance, encouraged their peers to boycott Nike shoes and clothing andtried to pressure their universities’ athletic departments not to sign dealswith Nike for team sports apparel.Instead of ducking the issue, as other companies might have, Nikeresponded vigorously to the criticisms. At the University of North Carolina,for example, Nike ran full-page ads in the student newspaper, asserting thatit was a good corporate citizen and upheld humane labor standards. It sentrepresentatives to meet with student activists, and company CEO PhilipKnight took the unusual step of showing up at an undergraduate seminar oncorporate globalization to defend his company. Nike issued press releasesand sent letters to many college presidents and athletic departments,asserting, among other things, that Nike paid “on average, double the

View the Answerminimum wage as defned in countries where its products are produced”and that its workers “are protected From physical and sexual abuse.”Enter Marc Kasky, a fFty-nine-year-old San ±rancisco activist. He thoughtNike’s campaign was misleading the public about working conditions insideits Factories, so he sued the company For False advertising under CaliFornia’sconsumer protection law. In Kasky’s view, the case was simply a matter oFprotecting consumers From corporate deceit. In response, Nike argued thatthe statements in question were protected by the ±irst Amendment becausethey were made in news releases, letters to the editor, and op-ed essays andbecause they related to the company’s labor practices—which are a matteroF public concern—and not the products it sold. Two lower courts agreedwith Nike, but then the CaliFornia Supreme Court overturned their verdict,ruling in a 4–3 decision that the company’s campaign was essentiallycommercial speech (which generally receives less ±irst Amendmentprotection than political or personal speech) even though Nike was notspecifcally talking about shoes. In the court’s view, Nike’s speech wasdirected at customers and dealt with its business operations; the Form inwhich the inFormation was released was irrelevant. The judges, however,didn’t determine whether Nike really did abuse workers or misleadconsumers; it leFt those Factual questions For a trial court to decide.Nike then appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. CaliFornia AttorneyGeneral Bill Lockyer fled a brieF in support oF Kasky, which seventeen otherstates joined. The brieF contended that the case was not about Free speechbut rather about “Nike’s ability to exploit False Facts to promote commercialends.” Harvard law proFessor Laurence Tribe, however, deFended thecompany, arguing that treating Nike’s letters and press releases asequivalent to advertising would undercut the ability oF companies to speakout on political issues. He urged that the CaliFornia decision would have a“chilling e²ect on Freedom oF speech.” To this, however, the chieF author oFthe CaliFornia brieF, deputy attorney general Roland Reiter, responded: “Ibelieve the concerns expressed are really overblown. We have a companytalking about itselF. It’s di³cult to see why holding them to the truth wouldcause any kind oF calamity.” USC law proFessor Erwin Chemerinsky agreed.He argued that it didn’t matter whether Nike issued the inFormation in theForm oF a press release: “IF a company makes False statements about itsproduct or practices with the intent oF increasing profts, that’s commercialspeech.”AFter having heard the case, however, the Supreme Court declined to decidethe substantive legal issues at stake. Instead, it dismissed the case on atechnicality and sent it back to CaliFornia For trial. BeFore the trial began,however, Nike settled out oF court with Kasky. As part oF the deal, Nikeagreed to donate $ 1.5 million to the ±air Labor Association, a sweatshop-monitoring group, and in a joint statement, Kasky and Nike “mutually

Show

Looking for a Similar Assignment? Order now and Get 10% Discount! Use Coupon Code "Newclient"