1. What kind of paper is the National Enquirer?
The National Enquirer is an American supermarket tabloid, which can be traced back to 1926. The paper was founded by William Griffin when he was given a loan by William Randolph Hearst to create the New York Evening Enquirer (Funding Universe, 2010). This paper was sold in New York City and as a partial repayment of Griffin’s loan, Hearst wanted to experiment new ideas in the Enquirer. Because of the unsuccessful articles published and antimilitary publications in World War II, sales never peaked. William Griffin later sold the tabloid magazine to Generoso Pope, Jr. Pope slowly decreased the amount of articles written about the war and added new columns that included worldwide events. In the early 1950s, the Enquirer started focusing on tales of murder, crimes, and confessions. Later, the paper added a gossip column, which assisted in raising sales of the magazine and by 1953, the Enquirer was considered a tabloid magazine (Funding Universe, 2010). The new gossip columns included stories about Elvis and other celebrities, in which they would write about scandals and betrayals. In 1957, the magazine was renamed the National Enquirer and by mid-1960s, the tabloid was available in retail chain stores across the United States. Before Pope died in 1988, the magazine was circulating throughout the United States and generating enormous profits, thus when Pope passed, many publishing companies bid for the opportunity to own the tabloid magazine. GP Group Acquisitions purchased the National Enquirer for $413 million in 1989 and in 1990 purchased the Enquirers competition the Star and launched the Enquire/Star Group, Inc., which went public in 1991 (Funding Universe, 2010). Presently, the magazine purchases information from sources, stalks celebrities to unlock secrets, scandals, or romantic affairs, such as the affair that John Edwards had. Additionally, the magazine focuses on front-page news, including pictures of celebrities at their worst, in which they write articles relating to the pictures. The Enquire exploits what they believe will sell the most issues of the weekly magazine. For example, Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie might be front-page news one week and an alien sighting might be front-page news the next. Some of the Enquires sources or information may not be accurate and is highly criticized by some, but the magazine keeps selling, which means that the Enquire is meeting the needs of the American consumers.
2. Was it ethical for the National Enquirer to try to avoid suit in California?
It is ethical for the National Enquirer to try to avoid suit in California. This is considered a diversity of citizenship, in which a case can be brought to the federal court if citizens are from different states or a resident of a state and the other citizen is from another country (Cheeseman, 2010). The diversity of citizenship is used when a citizen wants to bring a lawsuit against someone in another state and the subject matter does not involve a federal question. The cause of the diversity jurisdiction came about when the Constitution was first written because loyalty for an individuals state was stronger than their feelings toward the United States as a whole (Net Industries, 2010). Furthermore, it serves its purpose of being an impartial federal court that balances national purposes with the independence of each state.
The National Enquirer is a corporation, in which corporations are considered citizens of the state that they incorporated their company and also is their primary place of business, which is Florida. The plaintiff in the case lives in California, which is Shirley Jones primary place of residence. Because both parties have citizenship in two different states and the suit involves a nonfederal question, this qualifies for the diversity of citizenship.
Both parties qualify for a diversity of citizenship but Jones has to meet citizenship standards, in which it is not simply enough to say she lives in California and that meets the requirements, Jones has to have a residence in the state of California and intends to have that residence as her present home. This means that residence and intent makes California her place of residence (Net Industries, 2010). Because the National Enquirer is incorporated in Florida and Jones is a resident of California, the requirements for citizenship have been met. The citizenship of each party involved must be determined at the time that the lawsuit begins. Within the diversity of citizenship, any party can change their domicile and it has no effect on the courts jurisdiction (Net Industries, 2010). Additionally, the monetary amount must exceed $75 thousand, if the requirement of this is not met; the case has to be brought forth to a state court.
3. Are the defendants subject to suit in California? Why or why not?
In a diversity of citizenship case in federal court, the federal court must apply the proper state’s law in the decision of the case (Cheeseman, 2010). Regarding Calder v. Jones, the state of California’s laws must be taken into consideration in this case because the plaintiff is suing in California for defamation of character, intentional infliction of emotional harm, and invasion of privacy, the laws of California exist in this case.
In this case, the second largest circulation of the National Enquirer is in the state of California where the plaintiff resides. Concerning the article written about Jones, which stated Jones was heavily intoxicated, which prevented her from conducting herself professionally and fulfilling her obligations (Open Jurist, 2009). This article was researched and drafted by South, an employee of the Enquirer. South did most of his research from Florida by phone conversation with sources in California but traveled to California to conduct additional research. Before the article was published in the October 9, 1979 issue, South called Jones’s husband to try obtaining his views and comments on the article (Open Jurist, 2009). Other than the trips and conversations with California sources, South does not have any additional ties to the state of California.
The president and editor of the National Enquirer, Calder, is a resident of Florida, who oversees many aspects of the publication. Calder only visited the state of California prior to the suit, two times, in which neither had to do with the article written about Jones. Calder did approve and edit the final article that was published about Jones and thereafter refused to print a retraction of the article that was requested by Jones (Open Jurist, 2009).
In terms of the case, the Superior Court granted a motion that the service of processes should be overturned on the grounds of the chilling effect on the reporters and that Jones rights could be satisfied without requiring all parties to appear in court (Open Jurist, 2009). This motion was later brought to the California Court of Appeal and was reversed because a valid jurisdiction existed, in which the petitioners intended and did, inflict injury on Jones in the state of California. Even though the causing effects of the case were executed outside California, this had no affect on the states jurisdiction because the effects were noticeable in California, in which the article surrounded California activities, researched with California sources, and the harm inflicted was suffered in California. Therefore because the story and harm was surrounded around California, the jurisdiction in California is appropriate based on the effects caused in California (Open Jurist, 2009).