Case Study: Johnson V. Gawker Media

Charles C. Johnson sued the Gawker media due to defamatory statements made in several articles presented online. The allegation of defamation were in basis of false Twitter postings done by third party persons, posing as the plaintiff, harassing other individuals. The erroneous use of statements made by Johnson in regard to a Republican Primary race held in Mississippi, and about the former mayor of Newark, NJ. The misleading paraphrasing of Johnson commenting on the killing of Michael Brown Jr. Furthermore, the claims of a blogger to have known Johnson from college alleging that Johnson defecated in public. As well as stating that Johnson partook in a bestiality act with a sheep.
The facts of the case are as following. The Gawker Media is a Delaware corporation whose primary business is New York, and the defendants are residents of New York. Gawker media has no business of any sort partaking in Missouri at all. Plaintiff Johnson is a journalist, owner, and presidents of Got News LLC, a corporation located in California. Johnson is also a resident of California. Johnson has no business of any sort partaking in Missouri at all.

Johnson has attempted to gain personal jurisdiction over Gawker media using the Missouri long-arm statute.

He is alleging the committing of tort within the state.Hereby, the defendant must have sufficient minimum contact with the named state. The plaintiff argues that the Gawker media has business transactions with Missouri businesses by specific direction of advertisements. However, the advertisements were placed by Google through a third party advertising program that's directed on a large scale and not specifically directed to Missouri residents. As a result, since the defendants did not physically direct the advertisement to Missouri residents; there is not enough evidence to exercise long-arm

jurisdiction.
The second argument is the fact that extraterritorial acts of negligence caused consequences in Missouri. It can be foreseen that negligent actions have definitely caused consequences in Missouri, hence authorizing jurisdiction. The plaintiff acceded that the remarks have damaged their reputation, and their business, but not specified that they suffered the claimed damage in the state of Missouri. The long-arm statute in Missouri does not limit its coverage only to its confined area, but expands. Therefore, the tortious act in basis of the Missouri long-arm statute is met. However the criteria of sufficient contacts must still be met.
The accessibility of the website is not restrained to interactions with Missouri residents. Rather on a wider scale. The website is not designed to target Missouri residents through any paid subscription, nor tangible products. It has no assets, nort property in Missouri. Therefore, the fact that people can have access to the website and comment institutes insufficient personal jurisdiction. This is due to the fact that there is no evidence the people accessing the website and commenting are residents of Missouri.
The court's holding states trial partaking in Missouri would not be in the advantage of the plaintiff located in California, and the defendants located in New York. Missouri is an inconvenient venue for both parties. The courts holden is due to the given facts; the plaintiff has failed to plead sufficient claims to support their argument. As a result there is not enough proof to balance any factors to weigh in favor of applying a personal jurisdiction over the defendants in this case. The defendants also have failed to meet the sufficient quota of contacts in the state of Missouri and therefore availed themselves from the Missouri Laws.