One of the most justly unpopular of animal-rights groups is hoping to exploit the speech-suppressing potential of the California law invoked in Nike v. Kasky: “People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals Inc. accused the California Milk Advisory Board of violating the state’s unfair competition law by portraying an idyllic lifestyle for California dairy cows while knowing they endure a “harsh, uncomfortable and often painful existence.” The group is appealing a San Francisco judge’s ruling that the law’s false-advertising provisions cannot be invoked against a governmental entity such as the milk board. (Mike McKee, “PETA Cries Over Cow-Filled Milk Board Ads”, The Recorder, Nov. 18). For more on Nike v. Kasky, see Jul. 1, Jul. 9, Sept. 14, 2003. (Update Jan. 16, 2005: appeals court rules against PETA.)
It must be acknowledged that there’s something very odd about the result of the government exemption from s. 17200, namely that speech by government is insulated from endless second-guessing by litigious opponents, while speech by private businesses is exposed to such second-guessing. The way of fixing that odd situation, however, is to provide at least as much protection for private speech as government expects for its speech. California’s voters took a valuable first step in that direction earlier this month when they approved the principle that lawyers should not be able to deploy the law without a showing of actual harm. Update Jan. 16, 2005: appeals court throws out case; Apr. 23: California Supreme Court denies review.
Comments are closed.