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law enforcement, prosecutors, and other officials to request that private entities not disclose their home addresses or unpublished home phone numbers.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
免責聲明: XM Group提供線上交易平台的登入和執行服務，允許個人查看和/或使用網站所提供的內容，但不進行任何更改或擴展其服務和訪問權限，並受以下條款與條例約束：（i）條款與條例；（ii）風險提示；（iii）完全免責聲明。網站內部所提供的所有資訊，僅限於一般資訊用途。請注意，我們所有的線上交易平台內容並不構成，也不被視為進入金融市場交易的邀約或邀請 。金融市場交易會對您的投資帶來重大風險。
所有缐上交易平台所發佈的資料，僅適用於教育/資訊類用途，不包含也不應被視爲適用於金融、投資稅或交易相關諮詢和建議，或是交易價格紀錄，或是任何金融商品或非應邀途徑的金融相關優惠的交易邀約或邀請。
本網站的所有XM和第三方所提供的内容，包括意見、新聞、研究、分析、價格其他資訊和第三方網站鏈接，皆爲‘按原狀’，並作爲一般市場評論所提供，而非投資建議。請理解和接受，所有被歸類為投資研究範圍的相關内容，並非爲了促進投資研究獨立性，而根據法律要求所編寫，而是被視爲符合營銷傳播相關法律與法規所編寫的内容。請確保您已詳讀並完全理解我們的非獨立投資研究提示和風險提示資訊，相關詳情請點擊 這裡查看。
