When [professional] worlds collide: Implications of Kasky v. Nike for corporate reputation management

Public Relations Review

Volumn 30, Issue 4, 2004, Pages 411-417

  Collins, Erik L ^a   Zoch, Lynn M ^b   McDonald, Christopher S ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI   (United States)

Author keywords

Business practice; Corporate reputation; Management

Indexed keywords

EID: 8844250195     PISSN: 03638111     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.pubrev.2004.08.013     Document Type: Article

References (5)

1. Collins, E. L. (2000). The First Amendment status of IMC: Potential risks in for-profit corporate public speech. Journal of Integrated Communications. Retrieved October 17, 2003 from http://journalism.medill.northwestern.edu/imc/studentwork/pubs/jic/ journal/2000.htm
2. Griese, N. (2003, October). PR utterances: Nike settles commercial speech case for $2 million. Crisis Counselor, 1(9), Retrieved October 19, 2003. from http://www.anvilpub.com/crisis_counselor.htm
3. S. Kellogg Chicken little retold and illustrated 1985 William Morrow and Company, Inc New York
4. J.A. Loeb J.A. Sklar Practice tips: The California Supreme Court's new definition for commercial speech Los Angeles Lawyer 25 2002 13-16
5. Wheaton, J. (2001). California Business and Professional (sic) Code Section 17200: The biggest hammer in the toolbox? [Electronic version]. Journal of Environmental Law and Litigation, 16(2), 421-443. Retrieved January 18, 2003 from http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe/ document?_m=7a0c8eec02917fcefc363335cd268ebaanir_docnum=3anirwchp =dGLbVlb-lSlzVanir_md5=10bc25577fba29beb1f91289cdf260dd