I never said they were censored. Not sure where you got that from.
That is very ludicrous indeed. But not the same thing as what we are discussing. I'm not arguing in any way that stopping the city from purchasing any Nike products is illegal, and I'm definitely not saying that it violates Nike's freedom of speech. I strongly encourage you to stick to exactly what I have said, not what you think I'm saying. Also, I strongly encourage a simple question to ensure that I actually think what you think I think.
The thing we are discussing is an instance where a government is directing funds based on politics. I'm not sure if this example is illegal or not, but I can think of similar examples. Such as when Louisiana tried to stop the funding of Planned Parenthood for non abortion related services from medicaid. The judge declared that the decision was politically motivated and biased, therefor issued an injunction against it. Mind you, this ruling was in line with numerous other rulings by other courts. So in my mind, if a court can say "you aren't allowed to block this completely legal medical organization from government funds simply because you don't like their politics" it might be similar to "you can't block government funding from this apparel company simply because you don't like their politics."
Well, what you originally said didn’t make any sense at all, so in an attempt to make sense of your post, I construed the phrase “based on politics” to reference free speech. Why?
Because the notion the government cannot generally refuse to spend its money on the product of a company on the basis of the company’s politics made no sense. There’s NO court case I’m aware of saying otherwise.
Second. In the case you reference, the preliminary injunction wasn’t issued on any notion the State didn’t “like their politics.” Rather, the district court found Louisiana violated a statutory created right of “free choice of provider” under federal statute 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(23). They invoked 42 U.S.C. 1983 to litigate their “free choice provider right” under the Medicaid provisions.
From the appeals court,”The district court entered a preliminary injunction on the basis of the Individual Plaintiffs’ claims that LDHH’s termination of PPGC’s Medicaid provider agreements violates their free-choice-of-provider rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(23).”
So, okay, I’ll adhere to what you are saying. What you said isn’t what happened in the district court case you cited and made no sense.
So, it’s not illegal, at least not on the basis of “don’t like their politics.” The case you cited isn’t parallel, as I have no evidence of a federal, state, county, or municipal law creating a statutory right Nike can invoke as being violated, like the case you cited.
Maybe there’s a contracts claim if they had a contract with Nike.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
