Purchase Solution

In Kasky v. Nike, Inc., the California Supreme Court drew a

Not what you're looking for?

Ask Custom Question

In Kasky v. Nike, Inc., the California Supreme Court drew a distinction between a noncommercial speaker's statements criticizing a product as generally noncommercial speech and a commercial speaker's statements in praise or support of the same product. What was this distinction, and why did the California Supreme Court make it?

Business Law, Thirteenth Edition 2007.

Purchase this Solution
Solution Summary

In Kasky v. Nike, Inc., the California Supreme Court drew a distinction between a noncommercial speaker's statements criticizing a product as generally noncommercial speech and a commercial speaker's statements in praise or support of the same product. What was this distinction, and why did the California Supreme Court make it?

Solution Preview

What was this distinction, and why did the California Supreme Court make it?

-- The distinction was that the noncommercial speaker's statements ...

Purchase this Solution
Free BrainMass Quizzes
Writing Business Plans

This quiz will test your understanding of how to write good business plans, the usual components of a good plan, purposes, terms, and writing style tips.

Six Sigma for Process Improvement

A high level understanding of Six Sigma and what it is all about. This just gives you a glimpse of Six Sigma which entails more in-depth knowledge of processes and techniques.

Understanding Management

This quiz will help you understand the dimensions of employee diversity as well as how to manage a culturally diverse workforce.

Paradigms and Frameworks of Management Research

This quiz evaluates your understanding of the paradigm-based and epistimological frameworks of research. It is intended for advanced students.

Operations Management

This quiz tests a student's knowledge about Operations Management

View More Free Quizzes
Related BrainMass Solutions

  • Kasky v. Nike and the California Supreme Court

    439555 Kasky v. Nike and the California Supreme Court In Kasky v.

  • Nike vs. Kasky

    65136 Nike vs. Kasky Give a detailed explanation to these questions. Investigate and give a brief explanation Nike vs. Kasky. What impact does this case have on Public Relations? Nike, Inc. vs.

  • Focus on Ethics - Nike Vs Kasky

    Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by Nike Inc. on technical grounds.

  • Anti-miscegenation Statutes

    In contrast during Perez v. Sharp, the California Supreme Court became the first court to hold that anti-miscegenation laws violate the Federal Constitution. In Perez v.

  • Business Ethics of The National Enquirer, Inc: Jurisdiction of Shirley Jones lawsuit

    The Supreme Court, Justice Rehnquist, held that it was proper for a court in California to exercise jurisdiction over two Florida newspapermen in a libel action arising out of their intentional conduct in Florida which was allegedly calculated to cause

  • Offensive Speech and Offensive Conduct

    In Cohen v. California the Supreme Court held, "this case concerned "speech," and not "conduct," as was at issue in United States v. O'Brien.

  • Affirmative Action vs. Government Sanctioned Discrimination

    The Supreme Court did not use the same standard when reviewing the federal government programs until Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña, 515 U.S. 200 (1995). Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña, 515 U.S. 200 (1995).

  • National Enquire Business Law Case

    Lexis 4 (Supreme Court of the United States) 1. What kind of paper is the National Enquirer? 2. Was it ethical for the National Enquirer to try to avoid suit in California? 3. Are the defendants subject to suit in California? Why or Why not? 1.

  • Legal aspects of Privileged Communication

    421586 Redmond v. Jaffee Supreme Court Ruling is explicated. I am curious to know: 1. What was the result of the Redmond v. Jaffee Supreme Court Ruling? How is Redmond v Jaffee different from Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California?

View More Related Solutions