Calder V. Jones - Individual Supply and Demand Simulation

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 it is simply easier to use than the traditional newspaper style. However, overtime the National Enquirer and other tabloid approach to news reporting have become identified with news often-oriented toward sensationalism and gossip. This orientation has allowed the National Enquirer to establish itself as a leader in this type of news. Sensationalizing everyday activities of celebrities is exactly what it is trying to achieve, but this very goal unfortunately became the basis for the case of Calder v. Jones (Calder v. Jones, 1984). The National Enquirer is a national weekly newspaper. Moreover in 1984, the newspaper circulation was approximating 5,000,000 copies, nearly twice the volume observed by any another tabloid newspaper in the state of California. According to Cheeseman (2010) the National Enquirer's corporation resides in Florida, which is also where its principle business resides.

The Calder case involved the publication of an article by the National Enquirer involving the well-known actress Shirley Jones (Harmetz, 1984). The article of concern was written and edited by individuals working for the National Enquirer, and it 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. The primary issue presented by the Calder case was whether or not the National Enquirer, a Florida state corporation, was subject to service of process in California because it publishes its newspapers in other jurisdictions in which 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. Conversely, Shirley Jones argued that the National Enquirer should be subject to service because the article was written on sources from California. Jones claimed that the news discussed her career and life centered in California. The case worked its way through the court system until the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the National Enquirer was subject to service of process within the state of California. The focus of the Court's decision was that the focal point of harm ultimately suffered was in California, and the National Enquirer intentionally aimed its article toward Shirley. Jones who lived in California. The suit sought damages for defamation of character, emotional distress, and invasion of privacy.

The actions of the National Enquirer and its employees to avoid service of process is not considered unethical. Personal jurisdiction and service of process are legal technicalities and are subject to interpretation. Most important, attempts to avoid being forced to engage in a lawsuit in a forum that may be inconvenient or burdensome are legal maneuvers and recognized as proper under the Professional Code of Professional Responsibility. According to the American Bar Association, an attorney's failure to dispute properly the validity of "service