Defamation Business Ethics Case 3.5: Defamation and

Defamation Business Ethics Case 3.5: Defamation and Change of Venue The National Enquirer is a tabloid newspaper and as such, makes its revenue primarily from printing stories regarding public figures that are not inherently supported by meaningful investigative journalism, professional ethics, protection of privacy or adherence to responsible fact-finding.

This is demonstrated in the defamation and invasion-of-privacy case delineated here, where Shirley Jones has pressed charges against the widely popular publication for printing an article which she believed portrayed her inaccurately and in a manner that will have damaged here reputation as a performer or as a private citizen. Because the publication and its president are based in Florida and the suit has been brought in California, there is some pertinent debate regarding the defendant's attempt to have the venue moved to its home state.

Here, The National Enquirer has appealed to the argument that its operations being in Florida and the original act of alleged defamation having occurred in Florida, it is the entitlement of the publication to have its defense heard in its home state. However, this change of venue, according to the text by Cheeseman (2010), may only be supported in the event that a 'forum-selection clause' has previously existed in some manner of agreement between the defendant and the plaintiff.

According to Cheeseman, "a forum-selection clause in a contract specifies what court will hear the case if there is a dispute concerning a domestic or international contract. If the parties are from different states, the clause designates which state court will hear the case." (Cheeseman, p. 43) Based on the clause stated here above, it is not unreasonable that the National Enquirer sought the intervention of an administrative judge regarding venue.

Presumably, the National Enquirer might have put forth the argument that its contractual agreement with the customers in its multi-state circulation range carries just such a clause where defamation suits might be concerned. However, it is also pertinent to note that the plaintiff in this case has never willingly entered into any type of contract with the defendant, suggesting that it would be unfair and unethical to impose this type of clause upon the case in question.

This is particularly so given the fact that the state of California, where the original venue has been requested, possesses the highest circulation rate of any state where the Enquirer distributes, coming in at twice the next highest state circulation rate. That means that practically speaking, it would be inaccurate to suggest that California is not a context where the Enquirer should be held liable for its actions. Moreover, in cases of defamation, there is precedent for the application of umbrella federal standards that might suggest a universality of proceedings.

Here, JRank (2003) reports, "in 1964, the Court changed the direction of libel law dramatically with its decision in NEW YORK TIMES V. SULLIVAN, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S. Ct. 710, 11 L. Ed. 2d 686 (1964). For the first time, the Court placed some libelous speech under the protection.