The Fourth Circuit has reversed a district court's decision finding personal jurisdiction in Virginia for two Connecticut newspapers that allegedly libeled a citizen of Virginia. Read the unanimous (and short) decision (Young v. New Haven Advocate) or (Young v. New Haven Advocate [PDF]). This is a much better decision than the recent decision in Australia with a nearly opposite holding (Newsflash from Australia: High Court Decision).
Read more for a summary of the decision...
The question in this appeal is whether two Connecticut newspapers and certain of their staff (sometimes, the "newspaper defendants") subjected themselves to personal jurisdiction in Virginia by posting on the Internet news articles that, in the context of discussing the State of Connecticut's policy of housing its prisoners in Virginia institutions, allegedly defamed the warden of a Virginia prison. Our recent decision in ALS Scan, Inc. v. Digital Service Consultants, Inc., 293 F.3d 707 (4th Cir. 2002), supplies the standard for determining a court's authority to exercise personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state person who places information on the Internet. Applying that standard, we hold that a court in Virginia cannot constitutionally exercise jurisdiction over the Connecticut-based newspaper defendants because they did not manifest an intent to aim their websites or the posted articles at a Virginia audience. Accordingly, we reverse the district court's order denying the defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. [hyperlink added]
The facts of the case seem oddly anachronistic, as they involve a Southern prison warden bringing a libel suit against some Yankee newspapers.
The State of Connecticut had begun shipping some of its prisoners to a prison in Virginia to save money. This was not appreciated by the prisoner's families, who could no longer easily visit. Moreover, the transferred prisoners alleged harsh conditions and mistreatment in the Virginia prison facilities overseen by Warden Stanley Young. Articles were written in two CT newspapers, the Hartford Courant and New Haven Advocate on this issue, questioning the wisdom of the out-of-state prisoner transport policy.
Offended by one paragraph at the end of an article reporting that a Connecticut state senator had expressed concern about the presence of Confederate Civil War memorabilia in Warden Young's office and another column that reported on letters written home by inmates who alleged cruelty by prison guards, the warden sued for libel in Virginia. Since the two Connecticut newspapers have negligible circulation in Virginia (a total of eight subscibers for the Courant and none for the Advocate), the warden alleged that publication on the Internet was enough to create personal jurisdiction.
The district court found personal jurisdiction because "the defendants' Connecticut-based Internet activities constituted an act leading to an injury to the plaintiff in Virginia." Such a position, of course, would mean jurisdiction was essentially meaningless with regard to Internet activities. The Appeals Court clearly recognized this issue:
We thus ask whether the newspapers manifested an intent to direct their website content - which included certain articles discussing conditions in a Virginia prison - to a Virginia audience. As we recognized in ALS Scan, "a person's act of placing information on the Internet" is not sufficient by itself to "subject[ ] that person to personal jurisdiction in each State in which the information is accessed." Otherwise, a "person placing information on the Internet would be subject to personal jurisdiction in every State," and the traditional due process principles governing a State's jurisdiction over persons outside of its borders would be subverted. [citations omitted]
In order to find jurisdiction for articles posted on the Internet the court held that, "The newspapers must, through the Internet postings, manifest an intent to target and focus on Virginia readers." Since both the Courant and Advocate are decidedly local papers, no such focus on Virginia readers was manifested.
It is not clear how far this ruling goes. Would LawMeme be in the same category as the Courant and Advocate? We aren't expressly local in our coverage. On the other hand, we don't attempt to target any particular state. Lots of bloggers fall into this category. It will be interesting to see how jurisdiction continues to develop in this realm.