Business_Ethics

Business Ethics Case Paper Shirley Jones, an entertainer residing in California, believed that she was defamed, her privacy was invaded, and there was an intentional infliction of emotional distress created by an article written in the National Enquirer (Cheeseman, 2010, p. 49). Although the National Enquirer, Inc. is a business based in Florida, Jones filed a lawsuit in California state court to seek damages. This paper is intended to describe the kind of paper the National Enquirer is and whether it was ethical for the National Enquirer to try to avoid suit in California. It will also explain whether the defendants are subject to suit in California. The Paper The National Enquirer is a weekly tabloid circulated nationally with the largest circulation in California. Found in most supermarkets, this paper is known to exploit the rich and famous. To report on the latest celebrity news, the National Enquirer will pay sources if necessary to obtain information for the story. Although most of the articles in this paper are typically not valid, it is still read by many as a form of entertainment; however, Shirley Jones did not find the article written about her having a drinking problem as entertaining. Avoiding Suit Trying to avoid suit in California was ethical if the president and reporter believed they did no damage in California. According to Santa Clara University (2010), “ethics refers to well-founded standards of right and wrong that prescribe what humans ought to do, usually in terms of rights, obligations, benefits to society, fairness, or specific virtues” (What is Ethics', para. 8). Calder, the president and editor, and South, the writer of the article, both believed that they had no physical contact with California to write and publish the article. Calder edited the article in Florida, where the business is based and he resides, and South received information from sources in California while in Florida. The act to avoid suit in California was neither right nor wrong, but an attempt to have a fair case. Subject to Suit Under the long-arm statute, the defendants are subject to suit in California. This statute allows a state to assert their jurisdiction to nonresidents. Cheeseman (2010) stated, “as set forth in the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark case International Shoe Company v. State of Washington, the nonresident must have had some minimum contact with the state seeking jurisdiction over the nonresident” (p. 44). The National Enquirer transacted business in the state of California through its circulation of the paper and as a result, caused injury to Shirley Jones, a resident of that state. Conclusion In summary, Shirley Jones, an entertainer residing in California, filed a lawsuit against the National Enquirer. This weekly tabloid, known to falsify information and mislead readers, published an article stating Jones had a drinking problem. Calder and South believed that they did no damage in California in an attempt to avoid suit; however, they were not successful. According to the long-arm statute, the National Enquirer is subject to suit in California. As a circulated paper in the state of California, business was transacted in the state where injury was caused. Seeking damages in California from a Florida-based business was a correct and legal decision made by Shirley Jones.   References Cheeseman, H. R. (2010). The legal environment of business and online commerce: Business ethics, e-commerce, regulatory, and international issues (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Prentice Hall. Santa Clara University. (2010). Markkula center for applied ethics. Retrieved from http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/decision/whatisethics.html