Calder vs Jones (1984) Ethics

Calder vs Jones (1984) Ethics Case Study

What kind of newspaper is the National Enquirer?

The National Enquirer is a weekly tabloid that has been in operation since 1926. It has vast readership and circulation and gets published around the country including California where a significant percentage of published copies are sold even though the magazine originates from Florida [2]. The newspaper has a reputation of publishing revealing stories about celebrities-things which had been hitherto unknown to the public. They have a network of informants and openly admit to paying sources for tips, something which is not considered an acceptable practice in world of news publishing.

Was it unethical of the newspaper to avoid a case in California?

It was not unethical of The National Enquirer to avoid a case in California because it was well established that newspaper reporters cannot be held accountable in another state. The question of personal jurisdiction is a complex one and can be decided differently in different case. However the bottom line in law is that a newspaper cannot be asked to appear to respond to case filed in a state other than where it is based. It is however also established that in case of significant circulation in another state, a person or newspaper can be sued in that state. I do not however blame The National Enquirer for avoiding the case in the beginning because they cannot possibly be asked to appear in court cases filed in all corners of the country.

3. Are the defendants subject to suit in California? Why or why not?

The defendants would not have been subject to a suit in California had they not been enjoying a vast readership in the state. The reason being that law states clearly that free speech clause can be significantly violated when newspapers or their reporters in sued in states other than where the original story was published. 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 heavy circulation of the magazine.