Calder v. Jones the National

Calder v. Jones

The National Enquirer has established itself as one of the most successful tabloid style publications in America. In the technical sense, a tabloid is distinguished by its size (11 x 17) and which allowed the form to become popular with commuters because of its being easier to use than the traditional newspaper style. Over time, however, the National Enquirer and other tabloid type newspapers have become identified with news that is often oriented toward sensationalism and gossip. This orientation has allowed the National Enquirer to establish itself as a leader in this type of news and it was this type of information that gave rise to the case of Calder v. Jones (Calder v. Jones, 1984).

The Calder case involved the publication of an article by the National Enquirer involving the actress Shirley Jones (Harmetz, 1984). The article was written and edited by individuals working for the National Enquirer in Florida but was published nationally. Shirley Jones, the subject of the article, lived and worked in California and, for these reasons, she chose to pursue legal action for libel against the National Enquirer and the individuals involved in the writing of the story in California. The primary issue presented by the Calder case was whether or not the National Enquirer, a Florida corporation, was subject to service of process in California by virtue of the fact that it publishes its paper in other jurisdictions where its actions are intentionally meant to reach another party. The National Enquirer argued that it was a Florida corporation and, therefore, immune from service emanating from a California court while Shirley Jones argued that the Enquirer should be subject to service based on the fact that the article was written on sources from California and that it was about her career and life that was centered in California. The case worked its way through the court system and was ultimately decided by the U.S. Supreme Court which ruled that the Enquirer was subject to service of process in California. The focus of the Court's decision was the fact that the focal point of the harm suffered was in California and that Enquirer intentionally aimed its article toward an individual who lived in California as well.

The actions of the National Enquirer and its employees to avoid service of process should not be considered as being unethical. Personal jurisdiction and service of process are legal technicalities and are, therefore, subject to interpretation. Attempts to avoid being forced to engage in litigation in a forum that may be inconvenient or burdensome are a legal maneuver that are recognized as proper under the Professional Code of Professional Responsibility and an attorney's failure to properly dispute the validity of service would be considered unethical behavior (American Bar Association).