New Jersey defends privacy law shielding judges, prosecutors
Adds comment from Thomson Reuters in paragraphs 9-10
By Nate Raymond
Aug 6 (Reuters) -New Jersey's attorney general is urging a federal judge to reject a bid by scores of businesses to have a new law barring the disclosure of home addresses and other personal information belonging to judges and prosecutors declared unconstitutional.
New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin's office in a Monday brief argued the disclosure restrictions served to protect public safety and did not run afoul of the companies' free speech rights under the U.S. Constitution's 1st Amendment.
"The law achieves that important public-safety goal, and reflects the venerable tradition of safety and privacy in one's home, in well-tailored ways," the state's lawyers told U.S. District Judge Harvey Bartle in Camden.
The measure, known as Daniel's Law, was signed into law in 2020 by Democratic Governor Phil Murphy in response to the fatal shooting of the 20-year-old son of U.S. District Judge Esther Salas at her New Jersey home by a disgruntled lawyer.
The law, which has since been expanded, allows current and former judges, law enforcement, prosecutors, and other officials to request that private entities not disclose their home addresses or unpublished home phone numbers.
Companies that do not comply with an official's request to not disclose their information can be sued for damages.
A similar federal law named after Salas' son, the Daniel Anderl Judicial Security and Privacy Act, was enacted by Congress in late 2022 and protects judges by shielding their personal information online.
The constitutional challenge to New Jersey's law came in response to more than 100 lawsuits against various businesses that were filed by a company called Atlas Data Privacy, which was assigned claims by over 19,000 people eligible for protection under Daniel's Law.
The companies it has sued include real estate businesses; marketing companies; data brokers and credit reporting agencies. Among the defendants are CoStar Group, Oracle Corp, Zillow and Thomson Reuters, Reuters' parent company.
In a statement, Thomson Reuters said it "has long been committed to honoring privacy and keeping personal data safe." It said Daniel's Law "attempts to serve a laudable goal" but in its current form is overbroad and violates the 1st Amendment.
The companies in seeking to dismiss the lawsuits in June argued the law was too sweeping and "restricts substantially more speech than necessary to achieve its goal of enhancing the safety of public officials."
But Platkin's office, which intervened to defend Daniel's Law, in Monday's brief said the companies could not meet the high bar of establishing the law was facially invalid under the 1st Amendmentand lacked a plainly legitimate sweep.
It said the legislature enacted the law for a valid purpose to combat an "appalling trend" of threats to judges by "empowering individuals to protect their own privacy at home, a tradition that has always coexisted with the First Amendment."
Lawyers for Atlas in a separate brief argued the data regulated by Daniel’s Law did not constitute "speech" protected by the 1st Amendmentand that, even if it did, the law was a valid content-neutral restriction that could be upheld.
The case is Atlas Data Privacy Corp v. LightBox Parent LP, et al, U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, No. 22-4105.
For Atlas Data Privacy Corp: Rajiv Parikh of PEM Law, Mark Mao of Boies Schiller Flexner and John Yanchunis of Morgan & Morgan
For LightBox, et al: Kevin McDonough of Latham & Watkins
For New Jersey: Daniel Vannella of the New Jersey Office of the Attorney General
Reporting by Nate Raymond in Boston
Ultime news
Disclaimer: le entità di XM Group forniscono servizi di sola esecuzione e accesso al nostro servizio di trading online, che permette all'individuo di visualizzare e/o utilizzare i contenuti disponibili sul sito o attraverso di esso; non ha il proposito di modificare o espandere le proprie funzioni, né le modifica o espande. L'accesso e l'utilizzo sono sempre soggetti a: (i) Termini e condizioni; (ii) Avvertenza sui rischi e (iii) Disclaimer completo. Tali contenuti sono perciò forniti a scopo puramente informativo. Nello specifico, ti preghiamo di considerare che i contenuti del nostro servizio di trading online non rappresentano un sollecito né un'offerta ad operare sui mercati finanziari. Il trading su qualsiasi mercato finanziario comporta un notevole livello di rischio per il tuo capitale.
Tutto il materiale pubblicato sul nostro servizio di trading online è unicamente a scopo educativo e informativo, e non contiene (e non dovrebbe essere considerato come contenente) consigli e raccomandazioni di carattere finanziario, di trading o fiscale, né informazioni riguardanti i nostri prezzi di trading, offerte o solleciti riguardanti transazioni che possano coinvolgere strumenti finanziari, oppure promozioni finanziarie da te non richieste.
Tutti i contenuti di terze parti, oltre ai contenuti offerti da XM, siano essi opinioni, news, ricerca, analisi, prezzi, altre informazioni o link a siti di terzi presenti su questo sito, sono forniti "così com'è", e vanno considerati come commenti generali sui mercati; per questo motivo, non possono essere visti come consigli di investimento. Dato che tutti i contenuti sono intesi come ricerche di investimento, devi considerare e accettare che non sono stati preparati né creati seguendo i requisiti normativi pensati per promuovere l'indipendenza delle ricerche di investimento; per questo motivo, questi contenuti devono essere considerati come comunicazioni di marketing in base alle leggi e normative vigenti. Assicurati di avere letto e compreso pienamente la nostra Notifica sulla ricerca di investimento non indipendente e la nostra Informativa sul rischio riguardante le informazioni sopra citate; tali documenti sono consultabili qui.
