National Enquirer’s Problem Statement
The National Enquirer is a tabloid that publishes gossips, celebrity news, scandals and other informal and personal information of prominent persons. Just like other tabloids, the information contained in the publication focuses on personal lives of individuals as well as other information related to secretive activities of certain people.
Despite these personal news, the tabloids are very popular than the newspapers since they encourage their readers to get interested in knowing more by featuring untold stories. The National Enquirer was started in 1926 and has grown to be one of the biggest publishers of tabloids, with a list of uncovered stories of prominent persons. Although the tabloid enjoys huge market responses from the entire country, California remains its highest-generating state in terms of sales (Calder v. Jones, 1984).
The tabloid has published many scandalous stories of prominent persons and rumours that have mostly turned out to be true. However, some stories have also turned out to be defamatory on these celebrities, leading to great harm. One such case involved a Californian musician, whose private life was exposed by the Explorer and caused great defamatory damages to her (Cheeseman, 2010).
The Tabloid in Trying to Avoid Suit in California
It was not ethical for the National Enquirer to avoid suit in California. Although the Californian court seemed to lack personal jurisdiction, it was well aware of the potential harms on the respondent. The company was trying to run away from its responsibility and to discourage accountability. By using the jurisdiction claim to escape the charges, the National Explorer was trying to cover up its actions. In addition, the company had acted in a distrustful manner and since it was aware of the charges, it should not have resisted the charges at California.
Knowing its large target customer base, it was very easy and lucrative for them to have featured such a story. Since the company went on with the defamation, it was supposed to be held liable for the dangers and charged for its decision (Cheeseman, 2010).
The respondent’s place of residence should be the venue for the charges and for this reason, the tabloid knew of that but pretended not to realize it. The defamation process was also carried out intentionally and it required that the petitioners accept the charges and more so the venue for the charges.
Being accountable and responsible are some of the unethical practices that were lacking in the National Explorer. The company was aware of the amendments to the jurisdiction, but proceeded with the defence by claiming that they were not supposed to be charged in a Californian court.
Are the Defendants Subject to Suit in California?
The defendants are actually subject to suit in California and could be charged under the fourteenth amendment of the American constitution that permits any individual to be charged in any state (Calder vs. Jones, 1984). They were therefore rightfully charged in the California’s courts. Even if the employers were not guilty, the employees were supposed to face the law in any state as required by the fourteenth amendment.
Their intentional behaviour is another aspect that makes the California’s courts appropriate and the correct institutions, constitutionally, to prosecute the petitioners. Being an international paper, the National Explorer infringed the rights of the musician and disrespected her and was therefore liable for its actions in Florida.
While the employees were aware of the projected harm on the respondent, they caused the Florida musician to lose his fans; a move that saw him lose a lot in terms of revenues. The tabloid was therefore liable for the damages and based on the fourteenth amendment, it had no choice but to be sued in any court within California.
References
Calder v. Jones, 465 U. S. 783 (1984)
Cheeseman, H. R. (2010). Business law: Legal environment, online commerce, business ethics, and international issues. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.