The "chill effect" also comes into operation and hence provides some degree of protection to newspapers and reporters. However in this particular case, the court ruled in favor of the celebrity believing that Jones career had been damaged due to the publication of 1979 libelous story. The court believed that since the newspaper enjoyed heavy circulation and hence readership in the state of California, a resident of that state could bring a lawsuit against the newspaper. Jones a resident of California thus had personal jurisdiction over the defendants because significant circulation translated into a higher number of people becoming aware of the story and Jones' personal problems. This could in turn have a negative impact on her life and career. All first amendment arguments presented in favor of the defendants were also rejected by the court simply because of...

This is because the damage to the person would have been negligible considering that story wasn't published where the subject lived. However that was not what happened in Shirley Jones case and hence the National Enquirer lost the case and subsequent appeals.