The New York City Commission on Human Rights, which not long ago declared an employer or landlord’s use of the term “illegal alien” to be a form of illegal discrimination punishable by a fine of up to $250,000, is now negotiating with companies to obtain legal remedies over promotions and product designs it deems insensitive to protected groups. Among its targets have been fashion lines Prada, Gucci, and Christian Dior, over displays and designs charged with having referenced blackface or “perpetrated Native American stereotypes.” [Vanessa Friedman, New York Times] Robby Soave, Reason:
Prada’s signed agreement with the commission is incredible. The company will put all New York store employees—and company executives in Milan—through racial sensitivity training. Prada will also appoint a diversity and inclusion officer, subject to the commission’s approval. This person will be tasked with “reviewing Prada’s designs before they are sold, advertised or promoted in any way in the United States,” according to the terms of the agreement.
7 Comments
I think that the ideal response, for the safety of businesses, would be not to make anything, sell anything, buy anything from, ship anything through, hire anyone from, or do anything involving New York City. And it should be a nationwide movement.
Subotai Bahadur
“Prada will also appoint a diversity and inclusion officer, subject to the commission’s approval. This person will be tasked with “reviewing Prada’s designs before they are sold, advertised or promoted in any way in the United States,” according to the terms of the agreement.”
How is this not prior restraint on expression?
Prada could have fought the Commission through the Courts and after spending an awful lot of money on litigation they probably would have “won”.
But they could also negotiate an agreement with the Commission to avoid the delays and costs and that’s what they decided to do.
You are allowed to enter into contracts with terms that would be unconstitutional were they enacted into law.
“You are allowed to enter into contracts with terms that would be unconstitutional were they enacted into law.”
But should government agents be allowed to blackmail you into signing such a contract?
Of course not.
But ever since the Tobacco “Settlement” it’s been S.O.P. when control freaks gain sufficient leverage to get away with it.
This type of idiocy ought to go the way of the obscenity trials.
This seems like a First Amendment violation and beyond the Commission’s proper jurisdiction. Commercial advertising and marketing are generally protected by the First Amendment, even when they are racially offensive. For example, a court ruled that a food truck company could name itself “Wandering Dago,” after a derogatory term for Italians. (See Wandering Dago v. Destito, 879 F.2d 20 (2d Cir. 2018)). Prada’s supposedly offensive toy dolls were not nearly as offensive as that term, which the food truck company was nevertheless allowed to use as a business name and in the packaging for its food.
Properly construed, antidiscrimination laws are about giving minorities equal access to products — not allowing them to ban products that some find offensive. New York judges used to mostly understand this. A merchant displaying products bearing Polish jokes was held by the New York courts not to violate state antidiscrimination law — although there was, remarkably, a dissent by three judges in that case. (See State Division of Human Rights v. McHarris Gift Center (1980)).
Under the Commission’s apparent logic, a bookstore could be banned from carrying racist books because they make minority patrons feel unwelcome (even though a few minorities might want to purchase such books to conduct research about racism), or prohibit a video store from carrying videos that are viewed as sexist, or offend someone’s religious beliefs.