Since its publication, the "We, On Death Row" advertisement has sparked controversy around the globe and especially in the United States. In Missouri, a lawsuit has been pursued against Benetton for fraud and trespassing in connection with the company’s use of Missouri death-row inmates in the current publication. The law suit was filed by Missouri State Attorney General Jay Nixon on the grounds that Benetton misrepresented themselves and their goals to prison officials in order to gain access to the inmates and the inside of the prisons. For more information on the Missouri Suit, click here http://www.ago.state.mo.us/020900.htm

In California, Assembly Republican Leader Scott Baugh and Assemblyman Rico Oller co-authored Assembly Joint Resolution 50; which condemns the United Colors of Benetton advertising campaign. The Resolution was approved by the Assembly in a 59-8 vote; and calls on Californians to boycott Benetton products until the marketing campaign is stopped. For more information on the California Resolution, click here http://republican.assembly.ca.gov/members/4/pressrelease2653.html

In addition to the actions taken in Missouri and California, Northampton County District Attorney and president of the Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association, John Morganelli recently took aim at Benetton, calling the company’s advertising campaign "tasteless and offensive." Morganelli called for a boycott of Benetton products and said he’ll ask the state House and Senate and the U.S. Congress to pass resolutions condemning the campaign. For more information on the Pennsylvania resolution, click here http://www.mcall.com/cgi-bin/slwebsto.cgi?DBLIST=mc00&DOCNUM=7673

The controversy and protest surrounding the Benetton campaign also lead Sears Roebuck to cancel their contract with the company and remove all Benetton merchandise from their shelves in February. Sears severed their relationship with the clothing company in the face of increasing pressure from pro-death penalty groups, who staged protests at both Sears and Benetton locations. For more information on the Sears action, click here http://www.criminaljustice.org/public.nsf/freeform/benettonsears?OpenDocument

This is not the first time that the clothing company has faced legal trouble as a result of their advertising campaigns. Recently, a German court ruled that Benetton violated German competition law by exploiting "intense feelings of pity." The Benetton print advertisement featured an oil-drenched bird, Latin American child laborers and a human body stamped with the words "HIV Positive." A French court also ruled against Benetton, and demanded $32,000 in damages from the company, on the grounds that the advertisement was "a provocative exploitation of suffering." For more information on these suits and advertising law, click here http://www.arentfox.com/quickguide/businesslines/advert/advertisinglaw/advertisingrelatedarticles/int/int.html

Despite negative or critical interpretations and reactions to Benetton’s advertising, the company nevertheless enjoys the right to make arguments for societal change in America through the marketplace of ideas, just as any individual does. This corporate right to free speech and expression was established by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti in 1978. The decision in the Bellotti case held that "the inherent worth of the speech in terms of its capacity for informing the public does not depend upon the identity of its source, whether corporation, association, union, or individual." For the complete decision of the case, click here http://laws.findlaw.com/US/435/765.html

Corporate freedom of speech and expression rights were also furthered by the case of Consolidated Edison Co. v. Public Service Commission in 1980. The decision in this case held that suppression of a corporation’s right to discuss controversial issues of public policy directly infringes the freedom of speech protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. It further held that commercial speech when engaged in by a corporation is subject to the same standards of protection as when natural persons engage in it. For the complete decision of the case, click here http://laws.findlaw.com/US/447/530.html