WEBVTT 2 00:00:55.054 --> 00:00:58.447 SUSAN K. O'CONNOR: DWRENS IN THE CITY OF NEW BRUNSWICK WAS INSTRUMENTAL 3 00:00:58.447 --> 00:01:05.450 IN CAPUTO HAVING A NO SHOW JOB. THE RECORD IS CLEAR THAT CAPUTO'S POSITION IN THE CITY 4 00:01:05.450 --> 00:01:13.504 OF NEW BRUNSWICK DID NOT CONTAIN A RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT AND HE WAS THERE. 5 00:01:13.504 --> 00:01:17.831 PLAINTIFFS SOUGHT INFORMATION CONCERNING CAPUTO'S PRIVATE HOME ADDRESS ON TWO OCCASIONS 6 00:01:17.831 --> 00:01:24.559 IN MARCH OF 2023 FROM THE CITY, ONCE IN APRIL OF TWEE AND THEN FROM THE CITY COUNSEL IN 7 00:01:24.559 --> 00:01:30.334 APRIL OF TWEE. AFTER THE FIRST TIME THAT HE SOUGHT INFORMATION AFTER BEING 8 00:01:30.334 --> 00:01:37.666 TOLD THAT THE ADDRESS WAS SUBJECT TO DANIEL'S LAW, HE SOUGHT VOTER REGISTRATION RECORDS. 9 00:01:37.666 --> 00:01:45.826 AFTER BACK AND FORTH WITH THE CLERK WHO AT FIRST REDACTED PERSONAL INFORMATION 10 00:01:45.826 --> 00:01:51.120 HE RECEIVED CAPUTO'S HOME ADDRESS. THIS INFORMATION WAS PUBLICLY ANNOUNCED 11 00:01:51.120 --> 00:01:57.930 ON APRIL 17TH 2023 AT THE COUNSEL MEETING AN A COPY OF THE VOTER REGISTRATION FORMS WERE 12 00:01:57.930 --> 00:02:03.315 PROVIDED TO COIN KRIL MEMBERS. NO ACTION WAS TAKEN AGAINST PLAINTIFF AT THAT 13 00:02:03.315 --> 00:02:10.468 TIME. ON MAY 15TH, 2023, HE RECEIVED A LETTER UNDER THE REQUIREMENTS OF DANIEL'S LAW 14 00:02:10.468 --> 00:02:16.051 REQUIRING NOTIFICATION ADVISING THAT CAPUTO WAS A COVERED PERSON AND REQUESTING THAT PLAINTIFF 15 00:02:16.051 --> 00:02:23.004 NOT REDISCLOSE HIS PRIVATE PERSONAL INFORMATION. THIS OPT-IN PROVISION AS 16 00:02:23.004 --> 00:02:28.729 I SAID IS A REQUIREMENT OF LL AND PERMITS INDIVIDUALS TO CONTROL THEIR OWN PERSONAL 17 00:02:28.729 --> 00:02:34.495 INFORMATION. PLAINTIFF PUBLISHED THIS LETTER ON FACEBOOK AND TWITTER AND HE 18 00:02:34.495 --> 00:02:40.719 INDICATED ON FACEBOOK AN TWITTER, LOOK AT THE LETTER I'VE JUST RECEIVED AND THIS IS BECAUSE 19 00:02:40.719 --> 00:02:47.288 CAPUTO LIVES TWO HOURS AWAY FROM HIS JOB. NO ACTION AGAIN WAS TAKEN. 20 00:02:47.288 --> 00:02:54.496 INSTEAD, TWO MONTHS LATER PLAINTIFF FILED AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND. THIS 21 00:02:54.496 --> 00:03:03.244 CASE TURNS ON THE ARTICLE 1, SECTION 1 PRIVACY RIGHTS AND ARTICLE 1, SECTION 6 THE FREEDOM 22 00:03:03.244 --> 00:03:09.224 OF THE PRESS. THIS ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE IS BASED UPON THE NEW JERSEY CONSTITUTION. 23 00:03:09.224 --> 00:03:14.849 THE QUESTION BEFORE THE COURT IS THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF DANIEL'S LAW, WHICH WAS 24 00:03:14.849 --> 00:03:20.995 ENACTED TO PROTECT AND LIMIT DISCLOSURE OF PRIVATE HOME ADDRESSES OF THOSE COVERED PERSON'S 25 00:03:20.995 --> 00:03:29.714 BEING JUDGES, PROSECUTORS, LAW ENFORCEMENT AN D C P AND P INVESTIGATORS. IN 26 00:03:29.714 --> 00:03:36.537 ADDITION TO PRIVATE HOME ADDRESSES, DANIEL'S LAW COVERS UNPUBLISHED HOME TELL FOENL NUMBERS 27 00:03:36.537 --> 00:03:44.405 AND AS DEFINED IT IS EITHER OO KRP AND/OR CELLPHONE AN OR A LAND LINE. THE 28 00:03:44.405 --> 00:03:50.684 LAW PROHIBITS THE DISCLOSURE, REDISCLOSURE PUBLICATION OR REPUBLICATION OF A PUBLIC 29 00:03:50.684 --> 00:03:55.982 PERSON'S HOME ADDRESS BUT ONLY AFTER NOTIFICATION IS PROVIDED. IN OTHER WORDS, 30 00:03:55.982 --> 00:04:03.615 THERE CAN BE NO ISSUE WITH RESPECT TO DANIEL'S LAW UNTIL THAT NOTIFICATION IS PROVIDED. 31 00:04:03.615 --> 00:04:09.993 THE PURPOSE, OBVIOUSLY IS PROTECT THE PRIVACY OF THE INDIVIDUALS AND THEIR 32 00:04:09.993 --> 00:04:17.197 FAMILIES SO THAT THEY CAN CONTINUE TO DO THE JOB FREE FROM HARM. NOW, IT WAS 33 00:04:17.197 --> 00:04:23.478 GRATIFYING TO HEAR THAT THE PLAINTIFF HAS CONCEDED THAT THE PROTECTION OF THOSE COVERED 34 00:04:23.478 --> 00:04:28.813 PERSONS IS A STATE INTEREST OF THE HIGHEST ORDER BECAUSE THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT THE 35 00:04:28.813 --> 00:04:35.125 INCIDENTS AGAINST THESE COVERED INDIVIDUALS HAS INCREASED OVER THE PAST TEN YEARS AND 36 00:04:35.125 --> 00:04:43.091 IT TAKES THE FORM OF DOKSING AN. THE RISING VIOLENCE AN THE DIVISIVENESS 37 00:04:43.091 --> 00:04:52.636 HAS BEEN MULTIPLIED BY THE INTERNET. AND THIS LAW OF COURSE CULMINATED OF JUDGE SALAS' 38 00:04:52.636 --> 00:04:59.586 SON WHICH IS WHY THIS LAW IS NAMED DANIEL'S LAW. DANIEL'S LAW HAS A STRONG PRESUMPTION 39 00:04:59.586 --> 00:05:06.231 OF CONSTITUTIONALITY. THE FEDERAL CASES CITED BY THE PLAINTIFF ARE CASES WHICH 40 00:05:06.231 --> 00:05:12.925 SPECIFICALLY REJECT THE CONTENTION THAT TAULTS TRUTHFUL INFORMATION CAN NEVER BE PUNISHED 41 00:05:12.925 --> 00:05:18.950 CONSISTENT WITH THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND THAT THERE IS NO ZONE OF PERSONAL PRIVACY THAT 42 00:05:18.950 --> 00:05:25.295 MAY BE PROTECTED. EACH OF THE CASES CITED BY THE PLAINTIFF ARE LIMITED TO 43 00:05:25.295 --> 00:05:31.279 THEIR SPECIAL SPECIFIC FACTS AND HOLDINGS. IN THIS CASE, THE RECORD SHOWS 44 00:05:31.279 --> 00:05:37.912 THAT MR. KRATOVIL THROUGH HIS COUNSEL HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED NOT ONLY BY COUNSEL FOR THE 45 00:05:37.912 --> 00:05:43.528 DEFENDANT, BUT ALSO THE UNDERLYING COURTS AND HE MAY PUBLISH HIS ARTICLE CONCERNING ANY 46 00:05:43.528 --> 00:05:50.375 CRITICISM OF CAPUTO THAT HE MAY HAVE ALONG WITH THE FACT THAT HE LIVES IN CAPE MAY. THE 47 00:05:50.375 --> 00:05:55.857 SOLE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE PUBLICATION OF THE STREET NUMBER AND THE STREET ADDRESS WHICH 48 00:05:55.857 --> 00:06:00.845 ADD NOTHING TO THE ARTICLE THAT PLAINTIFF WANTS TO WRITE SHOULD BE PER MID TO BE DISCLOSED. 49 00:06:00.845 --> 00:06:07.496 OUR CONSISTENT POSITION IS THAT GIVEN THE COMPELLING INTERESTS OF PROTECTING 50 00:06:07.496 --> 00:06:13.904 THESE COVERED PERSONS AN OUR PUBLIC SERVANTS AND THE PRIVACY INTERESTS AND THE SAFETY 51 00:06:13.904 --> 00:06:19.657 INTERESTS NECESSARY TO PERMIT THOSE PUBLIC SERVANTS TO DO THEIR JOB AND TO GUARD THEIR 52 00:06:19.657 --> 00:06:25.915 INFORMATION AND TO PROTECTED THEIR FAMILIES FROM THIS ONSLAUGHT OF VIOLENCE THAT THE STREET 53 00:06:25.915 --> 00:06:30.440 NUMBER AND THE STREET NAME ARE NOT A MATTER OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE AN THEREFORE DOES NOT 54 00:06:30.440 --> 00:06:36.636 ADD ANYTHING TO THE FREE AN ROBUST DEBATE ON THE PUBLIC ISSUE THAT PLAINTIFF IS ESPOUSING. 55 00:06:36.636 --> 00:06:44.503 HIS REQUEST BOOTSTRAP NONRELEVANT INFORMATION SHOULD NOT BE TOLERATED BY THIS 56 00:06:44.503 --> 00:06:48.724 COURT. I WELCOME YOUR QUESTIONS. JUSTICE PATTERSON: IN YOUR 57 00:06:48.724 --> 00:06:55.623 BRIEF AT PAGE 12, YOU ARGUE THAT MR. KRATOVIL'S RELIANCE ON FLORIDA STAR FAILS TO CONSIDER 58 00:06:55.623 --> 00:07:04.526 LATER CASE LAW AND THEN YOU GO ON TO DISCUSS SNOOID DER. IS IT YOUR CONTENTION 59 00:07:04.526 --> 00:07:14.009 THAT SNOOID DER DIALS BACK THE HOLDING OF FLORIDA STAR IN SOME RESPECT AND IF SO, WHAT 60 00:07:14.009 --> 00:07:19.245 IS THE BASIS FOR THAT ARGUMENT. SUSAN K. O'CONNOR: MY CONTENTION IS THAT, 61 00:07:19.245 --> 00:07:26.367 AGAIN, THESE ARE ALL AS APPLIED CHALLENGES BUT SNOOID RESTRICTS THE PRIVACY AND DOES NOT 62 00:07:26.367 --> 00:07:30.887 LIMIT THE SAME CONSTITUTIONAL CONDUCT AS LIMITING MATTERS ON PUBLIC INTEREST. THERE IS 63 00:07:30.887 --> 00:07:37.092 NO THREAT TO ROBUST DEBATE. I DO AGREE THAT BASED UPON THE FACTS IN SNOOID 64 00:07:37.092 --> 00:07:41.328 WHICH OBVIOUSLY WERE DIFFERENT THAN FLORIDA STAR, THE PRINCIPLES THERE WERE DIFFERENT 65 00:07:41.328 --> 00:07:47.041 AND THEY WERE DIFFERENT BECAUSE THE FACTS WERE DIFFERENT AN BASED UPON THE LAW. 66 00:07:47.041 --> 00:07:51.622 JUSTICE PATTERSON: WHICH IS THE CLUSTER CASE, THESE ARE AS APPLIED CHALLENGES, WHICH IS 67 00:07:51.622 --> 00:07:57.437 IS THE CLOSER CASE TO THIS CASE. SUSAN K. O'CONNOR: SNOOID WAS RELATED 68 00:07:57.437 --> 00:08:02.148 TO ISSUES OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE AND PUBLIC IMPORTANCE CANNOT BE IMPACTED WITH RESPECT TO 69 00:08:02.148 --> 00:08:08.505 PRIVATE INFORMATION. FLORIDA STAR TALKED ABOUT THE PUBLICATION OF A VICTIM, 70 00:08:08.505 --> 00:08:14.424 THE NAME OF A VICTIM. THE ISSUE IN FLORIDA STAR I THINK, HOWEVER, WAS THAT 71 00:08:14.424 --> 00:08:21.310 THEY DO NOT HOLD THAT TRUTHFUL PUBLICATION OR THAT THERE IS NO ZONE OF PERSONAL PRIVACY 72 00:08:21.310 --> 00:08:27.396 THAT THE STATE MAY PROTECT INDIVIDUALS FROM INTRUSION BY THE PRESS. IN THOSE 73 00:08:27.396 --> 00:08:34.823 SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES -- I DON'T REALLY KNOW THAT IT WAS -- IT IS FULLY DISCUSSED AS 74 00:08:34.823 --> 00:08:40.454 IT IS IN THIS CASE WITH RESPECT TO THE PERSONAL ADDRESS, BUT THERE WAS A PUBLICATION WITH 75 00:08:40.454 --> 00:08:46.018 RESPECT TO THAT PARTICULAR VICTIM, BUT THEY WERE VERY, VERY CAREFUL TO SAY THAT WE DON'T 76 00:08:46.018 --> 00:08:53.234 HOLD THAT TRUTHFUL PUBLICATION OR THAT THERE IS NO ZONE OF PERSONAL PRIVACY. 77 00:08:53.234 --> 00:08:57.929 JUSTICE WAINER APTER: THERE WAS A STATUTE. JUSTICE WAINER APTER: IN FLORIDA 78 00:08:57.929 --> 00:09:03.048 STAR THERE WAS A STATUTE THAT MADE IT UNLAWFUL TO PRINT PUBLISH OR BROADCAST IN ANY INSTRUMENT 79 00:09:03.048 --> 00:09:08.951 OF MASS COMMUNICATION THE NAME OF A VICTIM OF A SEXUAL OFFENSE. AND THE UNITED STATES 80 00:09:08.951 --> 00:09:14.268 SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THAT STATUTE COULD NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY BE APPLIED TO A NEWSPAPER 81 00:09:14.268 --> 00:09:21.768 THAT VIOLATED IT BY PUBLISHING THE NAME OF A VICTIM OF A SEXUAL OFFENSE BECAUSE THE 82 00:09:21.768 --> 00:09:27.569 NEWSPAPER HAD LAWFULLY OBTAINED THE INFORMATION. SO I WASN'T SURE IN YOUR 83 00:09:27.569 --> 00:09:34.437 EXPLANATION JUST NOW WHY OR HOW YOU THINK THAT'S RELEVANT OR NOT RELEVANT TO THIS CASE. 84 00:09:34.437 --> 00:09:38.498 SUSAN K. O'CONNOR: SO THERE IS DIFFERENCES IN THAT CASE VERSUS OURSELVES. 85 00:09:38.498 --> 00:09:45.978 OURSELVES IS AN OPT-IN WHERE PEOPLE CAN REGULATE WHO HAS INFORMATION. JUSTICE 86 00:09:45.978 --> 00:09:50.751 PATTERSON: PLEASE KEEP YOUR VOICE UP AS BEST YOU CAN. IT IS DIFFICULT TO HEAR. 87 00:09:50.751 --> 00:09:56.747 SUSAN K. O'CONNOR: NO. 2, WITH RESPECT TO FLORIDA STAR, SAYING THAT THE MEDIA CANNOT PUBLISH 88 00:09:56.747 --> 00:10:03.457 IT WITHOUT RESPECT TO CONCERNS RELATIVE TO A HIGHER INTEREST AND PUBLIC POLICY, THEN I 89 00:10:03.457 --> 00:10:10.200 DO NOT THINK IT WOULD BE NECESSARILY BINDING ON THIS COURT AS TO OUR CASE. 90 00:10:10.200 --> 00:10:14.613 JUSTICE WAINER APTER: I THINK THE PARTS OF FLORIDA STAR THAT YOUR ADVERSARY IS RELYING 91 00:10:14.613 --> 00:10:21.776 ON ARE TWO. ONE IS WHAT IS A MATTER OF PUBLIC CONCERN. AND IN FLORIDA STAR, THE SUPREME 92 00:10:21.776 --> 00:10:26.676 COURT I THINK PRETTY CLEARLY SAYS BECAUSE THE ARTICLE ITSELF IS ABOUT A MATTER OF PUBLIC 93 00:10:26.676 --> 00:10:33.466 CONCERN, CRIME, IT DOESN'T MATTER IF THIS PARTICULAR VICTIM'S NAME IS OR IS NOT 94 00:10:33.466 --> 00:10:39.088 NECESSARY TO THAT STORY OR IS OR IS NOT A MATTER OF PUBLIC CONCERN, YOU LOOK AT THE GENERAL 95 00:10:39.088 --> 00:10:43.736 ARTICLE, WHICH IS ABOUT A MATTER OF PUBLIC CONCERN AND THAT'S IT. AND THEN 96 00:10:43.736 --> 00:10:50.069 I THINK YOUR ADVERSARY IS ALSO RELYING ON THE NARROW TAILORING PIECE WHERE THE SUPREME 97 00:10:50.069 --> 00:10:58.427 COURT SEEMS TO BE PRETTY STRICT ON ON HOW IT'S CONSTRUING OUR TAILORING WITH A LOT OF 98 00:10:58.427 --> 00:11:02.944 LANGUAGE WHEN THE GOVERNMENT ITSELF PROVIDES INFORMATION TO THE MEDIA THE GOVERNMENT FAR 99 00:11:02.944 --> 00:11:10.269 MORE MEANS OF GUARD BEING AGAINST ASSIMILATION SO HOW DO YOU DISTINGUISH FLORIDA STAR 100 00:11:10.269 --> 00:11:15.168 EITHER IN TERMS OF WHETHER IT'S A MATTER OF PUBLIC CONCERN IN THE VERY BROADWAY THEY 101 00:11:15.168 --> 00:11:19.918 LOOKED A LETTER THAT OR THE VERY STRICT WAY THEY LOOK AT NARROW TAILORING TO SAY THIS WAS 102 00:11:19.918 --> 00:11:23.948 NOT NARROWLY TAILORED BECAUSE OF ALL OF THESE REASONS. SUSAN K. O'CONNOR: 103 00:11:23.948 --> 00:11:27.993 THE ISSUE WITH RESPECT TO AND I THINK REALLY WHAT YOU'RE GETTING AT IS WITH RESPECT TO 104 00:11:27.993 --> 00:11:38.411 THE RELATED TO ISSUE THAT MR. SHALOM AND THE AMICI HAS INDICATED. IN THIS 105 00:11:38.411 --> 00:11:43.984 INSTANCE, THE ADDRESS ITSELF IS NOT RELATED AS INDICATED BY THE TRIAL COURT IN THE APPELLATE 106 00:11:43.984 --> 00:11:49.482 DIVISION, THAT IT IS NOT RELATED TO THE NATURE OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST THAT WANTS TO BE 107 00:11:49.482 --> 00:11:57.087 DISCUSSED, THAT IS HE LIVES TWO HOURS AWAY FROM CAPE MAY TO NEW BRUNSWICK. IN 108 00:11:57.087 --> 00:12:03.191 THE FLORIDA STAR CASE, THE GENERAL ARTICLE IN TALKING ABOUT RELATING TO THE MATTERS OF 109 00:12:03.191 --> 00:12:08.822 PUBLIC CONCERN, THEY FOUND THAT THAT VICTIM'S NAME COULD BE PUBLISHED DESPITE THAT STATUTE 110 00:12:08.822 --> 00:12:15.547 AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THEY DID THAT, BUT I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THAT IS, IF YOU WILL, BINDING 111 00:12:15.547 --> 00:12:21.544 IN TERMS OF HOW TO LOOK AT OUR INDICATION BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF A, THE PERSONAL OPT 112 00:12:21.544 --> 00:12:29.459 IN, B THE NOTIFICATION THAT HAD TO OCCUR, C, THE ISSUE WITH RESPECT TO WHETHER OR NOT 113 00:12:29.459 --> 00:12:36.328 THAT IS GERMANE OR GOES TO THE THRUST OF THE STORY AS TO WHETHER OR NOT CAPUTO HAS A, 114 00:12:36.328 --> 00:12:41.836 QUOTE, NO-SHOW JOB. JUDGE SABATINO: WHO IS IN THE BEST POSITION TO MAKE 115 00:12:41.836 --> 00:12:47.280 THAT ASSESSMENT. SUSAN K. O'CONNOR: SO, IN THIS INSTANCE, I UNDERSTAND 116 00:12:47.280 --> 00:12:55.786 THAT THERE IS QUESTION WITH RESPECT TO EDITORIAL PRIVILEGE AND WITH RESPECT TO -- AN AM 117 00:12:55.786 --> 00:13:02.340 ICI HAS ARGUED THAT EDITORS SHOULD HAVE THAT PRIVILEGE. I THINK IT IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT 118 00:13:02.340 --> 00:13:09.047 WHEN IT IS A BIG CONGLOMERATE LIKE THE AMICI REPRESENTS VERSUS INDIVIDUAL BLOGGERS ON 119 00:13:09.047 --> 00:13:18.295 INTERNETS BECAUSE THAT EDITORIAL PRIVILEGE THEN RESIDES WITH THEM. THE QUESTION 120 00:13:18.295 --> 00:13:23.380 REALLY IS, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE CONTENT FORM AND CONTEXT. JUSTICE PATTERSON: 121 00:13:23.380 --> 00:13:29.925 THAT LAST POINT, YOU TALKED ABOUT CON GLOM MER RATS AND THEN BLOGGERS AND THEN THE EDITORIAL 122 00:13:29.925 --> 00:13:34.752 PRIVILEGE RESIDES WITH THEM. WHO IS THEM? SUSAN K. O'CONNOR: 123 00:13:34.752 --> 00:13:40.661 OBVIOUSLY IF YOU HAVE A CONGLOMERATE YOU HAVE NEWSPAPER REPORTERS AN LEVELS OF SUPERVISION 124 00:13:40.661 --> 00:13:46.232 WHEN YOU ARE AN EDITOR AN INDIVIDUAL MROKER IS JUST YOU. JUSTICE WAINER APTER: 125 00:13:46.232 --> 00:13:52.507 DIDN'T THE U.S. SUPREME COURT IN FLORIDA STAR DISCUSS PRECISELY THE OPPOSITE WHEN IT COMES 126 00:13:52.507 --> 00:13:59.550 TO NARROW TAILORING. THEY SAID WHEN AN A STATE ATTEMPTS THE EXTRA MEASURE OF PUBLISHING, 127 00:13:59.550 --> 00:14:04.037 IT MUST DEMONSTRATE A COMMITMENT TO ADVANCING THIS INTEREST BY APPLYING THE PROHIBITION 128 00:14:04.037 --> 00:14:10.876 EVEN HANDEDLY TO THE SMALL TIME DISSEMINATE TORE AS WELL AS THE GIANT. SO FLORIDA STAR 129 00:14:10.876 --> 00:14:17.090 ONLY PROHIBITED A MEDIA GIANT AND THE SUPREME COURT SAID IT'S NOT NARROWLY TAILORED BECAUSE 130 00:14:17.090 --> 00:14:24.244 IT SEEMGS TO BE PROHIBIT EVERYONE YOU NOW SEEM TO BE COMING FROM AFRN OPTIC PERCENT SPOEKT 131 00:14:24.244 --> 00:14:28.823 I HAVE. SUSAN K. O'CONNOR: WHAT I WAS TRYING TO EXPLAIN IS THAT THERE IS 132 00:14:28.823 --> 00:14:36.676 A DIFFERENCE WITH RESPECT TO THE EDITORIAL PERSPECTIVE AND I WAS TRYING TO EXPLAIN IN 133 00:14:36.676 --> 00:14:44.301 RESPONSE TO JUDGE SABATINO'S QUESTION IS THAT COURTS SHOULD BE ABLE TO MAKE THAT DECISION 134 00:14:44.301 --> 00:14:52.311 IN TERMS OF CONTEXT, FORM AND CONTENT. JUDGE SABATINO: WHY NOT ACCEPT THE 135 00:14:52.311 --> 00:14:57.921 PREMISE THAT THE PLAINTIFFS HAVE MADE THAT AS LONG AS WE LAWFULLY GOT IT FROM A CLERK 136 00:14:57.921 --> 00:15:04.358 OR RECORDS CUSTODIAN THAT WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO RELY ON THAT AND NOT HAVE TO LITIGATE IT. 137 00:15:04.358 --> 00:15:07.629 WHAT IS YOUR RESPONSE TO THAT? SUSAN K. O'CONNOR: THE QUESTION 138 00:15:07.629 --> 00:15:14.018 IS IS IT NARROWLY TAILORED TO SERVE AN INTEREST OF THE HIGHEST ORDER. I THINK WE'VE AGREED 139 00:15:14.018 --> 00:15:18.188 THERE IS AN INTEREST OF THE HIGHEST ORDER WITH RESPECT TO THE PROTECTION OF COVERED PERSONS 140 00:15:18.188 --> 00:15:25.900 AND THEIR PERSONAL ADDRESSES. ONCE THAT PERSON OPTS IN AND ADVISES OR NOTIFIES THE REPORT 141 00:15:25.900 --> 00:15:32.520 ER. AND SO IF THERE IS A DISAGREEMENT, WHICH OBVIOUSLY, THERE WAS, IN THIS 142 00:15:32.520 --> 00:15:40.686 INSTANCE, AS TO WHETHER OR NOT MR. KRATOVIL COULD PUBLISH GOING FROM CAPE MAY TO NEW BRUNSWICK 143 00:15:40.686 --> 00:15:47.037 WITHOUT THE USE OF THE ADDRESS, PLAINTIFFS ARE THE ONE WHO FILED THE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. 144 00:15:47.037 --> 00:15:52.750 JUDGE SABATINO: DO THE TO DO THAT EVEN IF IT'S NEGLIGENTLY DISCLOSED. 145 00:15:52.750 --> 00:15:55.900 SUSAN K. O'CONNOR: I BELIEVE THAT'S THE STANDARD WITH RESPECT TO THE VIOLATION OF THE 146 00:15:55.900 --> 00:16:02.649 CIVIL STATUTE. JUDGE SABATINO: NOT NEGLIGENTLY DISCLOSED BY THE PLAINTIFF, 147 00:16:02.649 --> 00:16:09.397 BUT NEGLIGENTLY DISCLOSED BY A CLERK, THEY GET IT LAWFULLY, BUT MISTAKENLY BY A CLERK, 148 00:16:09.397 --> 00:16:16.967 CAN THEY AT THAT POINT SAY WELL, NOW, THERE IS NO LAW GRANTING NEED FOR THEM TO DEMONSTRATE 149 00:16:16.967 --> 00:16:22.111 ANYTHING WE GO TO COURT BECAUSE APPLYING THE NARROWLY TAILORED TEST THEY'VE DONE WHAT 150 00:16:22.111 --> 00:16:26.794 THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO DO WHICH IS THEY'VE GONE TO THE GOVERNMENT AN THE GOVERNMENT GAVE 151 00:16:26.794 --> 00:16:31.046 IT TO THEM. I THINK THAT'S THEIR POSITION. SUSAN K. O'CONNOR: YOU HAVE 152 00:16:31.046 --> 00:16:37.210 N.J.S.A. WHICH IS AN EXCEPTION TO THE REDACTION REQUIREMENT ONE IS HOME ADDRESS AND VOTER 153 00:16:37.210 --> 00:16:42.554 REGISTRATION FILES, WHICH IS THE ONE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE. DANIEL'S LAW 154 00:16:42.554 --> 00:16:50.098 ON TOP OF THAT SPECIFIED EXCEPTION PROHIBITS THE PESTING OR REPOSTING THE PUBLISHING OR 155 00:16:50.098 --> 00:16:56.849 REPUBLISHING; THAT'S WHY WHEN I SPECIFICALLY TALKED ABOUT ANY ACTION BEING TAKEN, WE 156 00:16:56.849 --> 00:17:03.580 DIDN'T TAKE ANY ACTION UNTIL WE SENT THAT OPT IN LETTER NOTIFYING OF THE FACT THAT WE WOULD 157 00:17:03.580 --> 00:17:09.087 OBJECT TO ANY PERSON SPECIFYING THE HOME ADDRESS. JUDGE SABATINO: I GATHER, 158 00:17:09.087 --> 00:17:15.375 THOUGH, YOUR POINT IS EVEN IF IT IS NEGLIGENTLY DISCLOSED THAT THERE IS A HIGHER PIB INTEREST 159 00:17:15.375 --> 00:17:20.496 THAT IS PRESENT THAT'S FOR A COURT TO DECIDE AND THE REQUESTING PARTIES SHOULD HOLD UP 160 00:17:20.496 --> 00:17:24.382 UNTIL THE COURT MAKES A DECISION? SUSAN K. O'CONNOR: THE REQUESTING PARTY 161 00:17:24.382 --> 00:17:32.998 IN THIS CASE, OBVIOUSLY, HAVE PUBLISHED THAT ARTICLE MANY, MANY MONTHS AGO. IT IS A 162 00:17:32.998 --> 00:17:39.530 QUESTION NOW AS TO WHETHER OR NOT AND I AM NOT IN MR. KRATOVIL'S MIND, WHETHER OR NOT 163 00:17:39.530 --> 00:17:44.450 HE INTENDS TO STILL PUBLISH THAT ARTICLE AND IF HE DOES WHETHER OR NOT HE STILL WANTS TO 164 00:17:44.450 --> 00:17:49.435 PUBLISH IT WITH DIRECTOR CAPUTO'S HOME ADDRESS. JUSTICE WAINER APTER: CAN YOU 165 00:17:49.435 --> 00:17:53.781 SAY THAT ONE MORE TIME WHEN YOU SAID THAT MR. KRATOVIL COULD HAVE PUBLISHED THE ARTICLE 166 00:17:53.781 --> 00:17:57.967 A LONG TIME AGO, DO YOU MEAN CONSISTENTLY WITH DANIEL'S LAW. SUSAN K. O'CONNOR: 167 00:17:57.967 --> 00:18:02.512 CONSISTENTLY WITH DANIEL'S LAW WITHOUT UTILIZING THE ADDRESS. JUSTICE WAINER 168 00:18:02.512 --> 00:18:06.136 APTER: I'M SORRY. OKAY. SUSAN K. O'CONNOR: IN OTHER WORDS, HE'S BEEN TOLD 169 00:18:06.136 --> 00:18:10.595 FROM THE BEGINNING THAT HE IS MORE THAN WELCOME TO TALK ABOUT THE ISSUE OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 170 00:18:10.595 --> 00:18:17.984 AND HOW IT GOES WITH RESPECT TO 200 MILES OR WHATEVER IT IS IN DIFRNGS BETWEEN CAPE MAY 171 00:18:17.984 --> 00:18:23.665 AND NEW BRUNSWICK. HIS ISSUE OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE IS THAT CAPUTO IS A NO-SHOW JOB 172 00:18:23.665 --> 00:18:28.802 AND THAT CAPUTO WAS NOT PERFORMING HIS JOB BECAUSE HE WAS ELSEWHERE. JUSTICE 173 00:18:28.802 --> 00:18:34.878 MICHAEL NORIEGA: HOW DO YOU RESPOND TO MR. SHALOM'S POINT THAT IF HE HAD INTERVIEWED 174 00:18:34.878 --> 00:18:38.637 NEIGHBORS AND OTHER FOLKS IN THE VICINITY OF WHERE MR. CAPUTO LIVES THEY MITIGATING FACTOR 175 00:18:38.637 --> 00:18:44.351 INADVERTENTLY REVEALED HIS ADDRESS WITHOUT PU LISHING IT. SUSAN K. O'CONNOR: 176 00:18:44.351 --> 00:18:51.840 SO IT'S SO INTERESTING BECAUSE THE EXAMPLE MR. SHALOM USED WAS THE FLYING OF FLAGS OF 177 00:18:51.840 --> 00:19:01.213 A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE DOWN THE SHORE SOMEWHERE. ANY OF THE ARTICLES THAT I'VE EVER 178 00:19:01.213 --> 00:19:06.842 SEEN NEVER SPOKE ABOUT THE ACTUAL ADDRESS, RIGHT, OF THAT AND THERE WAS INFORMATION IN 179 00:19:06.842 --> 00:19:12.683 THOSE ARTICLES WHERE THEY WENT AN SPOKE TO NEIGHBORS, WHAT DID YOU THINK ABOUT HIM 180 00:19:12.683 --> 00:19:19.907 FLYING X FLAG AND THAT WAS REPORTED. UNDER DANIEL'S LAW, UNLESS THOSE NEIGHBORS 181 00:19:19.907 --> 00:19:27.244 GET A LETTER SAYING PLEASE DON'T DISCUSS MY INFORMATION AND THEN IF CAPUTO KNEW THAT THAT 182 00:19:27.244 --> 00:19:34.506 INFORMATION WAS BEING DISCUSSED AND THEN SENT A LETTER TO MR. KRATOVIL, THEN PERHAPS, 183 00:19:34.506 --> 00:19:40.513 BECAUSE MY UNDERSTANDING -- JUSTICE WAINER APTER: PERHAPS WHAT? 184 00:19:40.513 --> 00:19:45.753 SUSAN K. O'CONNOR: I UNDERSTAND THE COURT'S POINT, WOULD OTHERWISE MAKE AVAILABLE SO WITH 185 00:19:45.753 --> 00:19:53.261 RESPECT TO DANIEL'S LAW H -- DANIEL'S LAW HAS TO DO WITH THE PROTECTION. I THINK THAT 186 00:19:53.261 --> 00:20:00.827 ONCE A REPORTER OR ANYONE RECEIVES THAT LETTER THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE WITH RESPECT TO 187 00:20:00.827 --> 00:20:07.900 PROTECTING ALL OF US, ALL OF OUR COVERED PERSONS. JUSTICE PIERRE-LOUIS: SO 188 00:20:07.900 --> 00:20:14.954 IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT MR. SHALOM'S ARGUMENT WAS A JOURNALIST WOULD NOT BE ON NOTICE 189 00:20:14.954 --> 00:20:24.378 OF WHAT THEY COULD WRITE BASED ON HIS ARGUMENT THAT IF WE -- IF HE INTERVIEWED NEIGHBORS 190 00:20:24.378 --> 00:20:31.716 AND THE NEIGHBOR HAD A VERY DISTINCTIVE NAME OR DISTINCTIVE LOOK OF THEIR HOUSE THEN 191 00:20:31.716 --> 00:20:37.146 IT WOULD EASILY BE REVEALED WHERE CAPUTO LIVES OR WHOEVER ELSE AN ARTICLE IS BEING WRITTEN 192 00:20:37.146 --> 00:20:44.167 ABOUT SO WHAT IS YOUR RESPONSE ABOUT THAT IF WE WERE TO HOLD AS YOUR ARGUING WOULD 193 00:20:44.167 --> 00:20:50.109 JOURNALISTS BE ON NOTICE OF THE LIMITS TO WHICH THEY COULD REPORT WITH REGARD TO POSSIBLY 194 00:20:50.109 --> 00:20:55.875 INADVERTENTLY REVEALING A COVERED PERSON'S ADDRESS UNDERSTAND THE STATUTE. 195 00:20:55.875 --> 00:21:00.713 SUSAN K. O'CONNOR: THE QUESTION IN THAT CASE IS WHETHER OR NOT THE JOURNALIST RECEIVED 196 00:21:00.713 --> 00:21:06.264 A NOTIFICATION FROM THE INDIVIDUAL WHO WAS AFFECTED. IF THE JOURNALIST WENT AND SPOKE 197 00:21:06.264 --> 00:21:11.526 TO NEIGHBORS AN FORMER DIRECTOR CAPUTO KNEW NOTHING ABOUT THAT, THERE WOULD BE NO 198 00:21:11.526 --> 00:21:16.690 POSSIBLE WAY THAT HE COULD ACTUALLY SEND AN OPT IN LETTER SAYING PLEASE DO NOT PUBLISH 199 00:21:16.690 --> 00:21:21.048 MY INFORMATION. JUSTICE WAINER APTER: MR. KRATOVIL RECEIVED THE LETTER 200 00:21:21.048 --> 00:21:27.001 AN THEN THE CITY CAME OUT AND SAID THIS WHOLE THING IS NONSENSE AND HE'S NOT A NO SHOW 201 00:21:27.001 --> 00:21:34.526 AND HE LIVES IN NEW BRUNSWICK AND ALL OF MR. KRATOVIL'S REPORTING IS FALSE. OR THERE 202 00:21:34.526 --> 00:21:40.439 WAS A PRESS RELEASE THAT SAID. SUSAN K. O'CONNOR: THERE WAS A PRESS RELEASE 203 00:21:40.439 --> 00:21:45.482 I DON'T THINK THEY SAID MR. KRATOVIL'S REPORTING WAS FALSE BECAUSE IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT 204 00:21:45.482 --> 00:21:51.105 MR. KRATOVIL HAS NOT REPORTED ON THIS ISSUE, NO. 1. NO. 2 THEY DID INDICATE THE SAME 205 00:21:51.105 --> 00:21:56.471 THING WE'VE INDICATED ON THE RECORD IS THAT HE HAD APARTMENTS IN MIDDLESEX KOIVENT TEE, 206 00:21:56.471 --> 00:22:04.346 HE DOES LIVE IN CAPE MAY AND THAT HE -- IN THE MAY OR'S OPINION, HE WAS DOING HIS JOB. 207 00:22:04.346 --> 00:22:07.661 HE WAS NOT A NO SHOW JOB. JUSTICE PIERRE-LOUIS: DO YOU THINK WITH REGARD TO 208 00:22:07.661 --> 00:22:13.912 P P INTERVIEWING OF NAEBS THERE WOULD NEED TO BE NOTICE WITH REGARD TO THAT SPECIFICALLY 209 00:22:13.912 --> 00:22:21.851 AS OPPOSED TO THE NOTICE THAT WAS PROVIDED IN THIS CASE AS OPPOSED TO NOT PUBLISHING 210 00:22:21.851 --> 00:22:26.309 CAPUTO'S PUBLISHED ADDRESS BUT IN THE HYPOTHETICALS THAT MR. SHALOM DISCUSSED THAT 211 00:22:26.309 --> 00:22:30.414 THERE WOULD NEED TO BE SOME SEPARATE NOTICE WITH REGARD TO ANY OTHER REPORTING THAT OTHERWISE 212 00:22:30.414 --> 00:22:34.380 MADE HIS ADDRESS AVAILABLE. SUSAN K. O'CONNOR: IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, 213 00:22:34.380 --> 00:22:40.948 IF MR. KRATOVIL WENT OUT TOMORROW AND TALKED TO DIRECTOR CAPUTO'S NEIGHBORS AND THEY SAID 214 00:22:40.948 --> 00:22:47.186 HE IS EITHER THERE -- WELL, NOW HE IS THERE A LOT BECAUSE HE'S RETIRED, BUT EASE EASE 215 00:22:47.186 --> 00:22:52.566 EITHER THERE FIVE DAYS A WEEK OR ONE DAY A WEEK OR WHATEVER IT IS, AND MR. KRATOVIL UTILIZED 216 00:22:52.566 --> 00:23:03.683 THAT WITH RESPECT TO HIS ARTICLE, HE CAN OBTAIN -- AS LONG AS HE DOESN'T -- IT DEPENDS 217 00:23:03.683 --> 00:23:11.634 WHAT HE SAYS AND THIS IS WHERE THESE HYPOTHETICALS RUN AFOUL. IF HE SAYS I SPOKE 218 00:23:11.634 --> 00:23:16.484 TO X, Y AND Z IN CAPE MAY I BELIEVE HE CAN PUBLISH THAT BECAUSE WE HAVE ALWAYS SAID KRATOVIL 219 00:23:16.484 --> 00:23:25.149 LIVES IN -- CAPUTO LIVES IN KAIP MAY. IF HE SAY WE TALKED TO X, Y AND Z AND THEY LIVE 220 00:23:25.149 --> 00:23:34.490 AT WING WING NO. 2, NO. 6 AND NO. 8, X, Y AND Z STREET THEN IT WOULD BE MUCH EASIER FOR 221 00:23:34.490 --> 00:23:40.142 SOMEBODY TO FIGURE OUT WHERE DIRECTOR CAPUTO LIVES EVEN AFTER RECEIVING THAT NOTIFICATION. 222 00:23:40.142 --> 00:23:45.627 AND FIGURING OUT WHERE HE LIVES AFTER BEING NOTIFIED AND REALLY FLYING IN 223 00:23:45.627 --> 00:23:52.230 THE FACE OF DANIEL'S LAW, THERE IS JUST DIFFERENT WAYS TO DO IT AND I THINK THAT IF HE 224 00:23:52.230 --> 00:23:57.660 DID IT, I DON'T WANT TO SAY THE RIGHT WAY, BUT THE MORE THOUGHTFUL WAY WHERE THERE IS 225 00:23:57.660 --> 00:24:06.054 NOT A POTENTIAL DISCLOSURE OF DIRECTOR CAPUTO'S ACTUAL STREET ADDRESS, ACTUAL STREET NAME, 226 00:24:06.054 --> 00:24:12.552 THAT COMPLIES, AS I'VE SAID ALL ALONG WITH DANIEL'S LAW. JUDGE SABATINO: 227 00:24:12.552 --> 00:24:17.769 DO YOU TAKE THE POSITION THAT THERE IS NEVER A SITUATION WHERE SOMEBODY WHO IS A COVERED 228 00:24:17.769 --> 00:24:23.812 PERSON WHO HAS OPTED IN, THERE IS NEVER A SITUATION IN WHICH DISCLOSURE OF THE EXACT 229 00:24:23.812 --> 00:24:28.153 STREET ADDRESS IS CONSTITUTIONALLY PERMISSIBLE. SUSAN K. O'CONNOR: I DO 230 00:24:28.153 --> 00:24:33.859 NOT TAKE TA POSITION. I THINK IF DIRECTOR CAPUTO WAS SELLING DRUGS OUT OF HIS HOUSE OR 231 00:24:33.859 --> 00:24:39.155 IF DIRECTOR CAPUTO WAS TAKING SOME CRIMINAL ACTION AND THE ADDRESS OF THE HOUSE WAS 232 00:24:39.155 --> 00:24:44.674 DIRECTLY CONCERNING AN ISSUE OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE, THEN I DO THINK THAT THAT ADDRESS COULD BE, 233 00:24:44.674 --> 00:24:51.120 COULD BE. JUSTICE PATTERSON: HYPOTHETICALLY SELLING DRUGS IS ALL 234 00:24:51.120 --> 00:24:54.122 HYPOTHETICAL, LET'S MAKE CLEAR. SUSAN K. O'CONNOR: YES. JUSTICE 235 00:24:54.122 --> 00:25:00.892 PATTERSON: BUT IF AN INDIVIDUAL IS SELLING DRUGS OUT OF THEIR HOUSE COVERED BY DANIEL'S 236 00:25:00.892 --> 00:25:05.166 LAW, YOU COULD MAKE THE SAME ARGUMENT FOR THAT AS YOU DO WITH RESPECT TO HIS STREET ADDRESS 237 00:25:05.166 --> 00:25:10.488 IN THIS SITUATION WHICH IS THE STORY OF A PUBLIC OFFICIAL SELLING DRUGS OUT OF HIS HOUSE 238 00:25:10.488 --> 00:25:16.519 DOES NOT REQUIRE EVERYONE TO KNOW WHAT HOUSE IT IS. THEY DON'T HAVE TO GO AND LOOK AT THE 239 00:25:16.519 --> 00:25:22.716 HOUSE TO UNDERSTAND THE SERIOUSNESS OF THAT SITUATION. I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU 240 00:25:22.716 --> 00:25:29.420 DISTINGUISH RESPECTFULLY BETWEEN THAT SETTING AND THE SET BEING OF THIS CASE? 241 00:25:29.420 --> 00:25:39.269 SUSAN K. O'CONNOR: WELL, TO ME, IF THERE IS ALONG SPLALG NAUSZ WBD OBJECT A COMPLIED NIGSZ 242 00:25:39.269 --> 00:25:44.804 NEXUS WITH RESPECT TO THE HOUSE AN CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES THAT IS OCCURRING THERE AND THERE 243 00:25:44.804 --> 00:25:49.606 HAS BEEN CASE LAW ON THAT AND WE'VE BRIEFED IT, I DO BELIEVE THAT THAT INFORMATION HAS 244 00:25:49.606 --> 00:25:55.272 A DIRECT NEXUS TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND TO THE PUBLIC DIALOGUE. IN THIS 245 00:25:55.272 --> 00:26:00.697 INSTANCE, THE PUBLIC DIALOGUE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HIS ACTUAL ADDRESS. IT HAS TO DO 246 00:26:00.697 --> 00:26:04.679 WITH THE DISTANCE. JUSTICE PATTERSON: BUT THE SELLING DRUGS OUT OF HIS 247 00:26:04.679 --> 00:26:12.555 HOUSE, IF IT HAPPENED, IF IT'S ALLEGED, IT'S RORTDZ ABOUT WHICH HOUSE IT IS, IF SOMEONE 248 00:26:12.555 --> 00:26:19.180 WERE TO GET IN THEIR CAR AND DRIVE AROUND THE CITY, THE TOWN, WHATEVER THE TOWN IS, IS 249 00:26:19.180 --> 00:26:27.137 NOT CENTRAL TO THAT STORY, IS IT? SUSAN K. O'CONNOR: IT MAY BE. IT'S VERY 250 00:26:27.137 --> 00:26:31.540 FACTUALLY SENSITIVE. JUSTICE PATTERSON: MY SUGGESTION TO YOU IS IF THAT'S 251 00:26:31.540 --> 00:26:37.975 TRUE THEN WHAT HE IS BEING ACCUSED OF IN THIS SITUATION WHICH IS LIVING SOMEPLACE THAT 252 00:26:37.975 --> 00:26:46.557 MAKES HIM A NO SHOW EMPLOYEE AND I'M NOT SAYING HE WAS OR HE WASN'T, BUT THAT WAS THE 253 00:26:46.557 --> 00:26:52.825 ALLEGATION HERE, IT COULD ARGUABLY MATTER WHERE HE WAS LIVING IS PART OF THAT STORY. 254 00:26:52.825 --> 00:26:56.387 SUSAN K. O'CONNOR: AND WHERE HE WAS LIVING WAS WITHIN THE TOWN OF CAPE MAY. 255 00:26:56.387 --> 00:27:02.188 ADDING HIS HOUSE STREET NUMBER AND STREET NAME HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH LOCATION, IF YOU 256 00:27:02.188 --> 00:27:06.157 WILL IN TERMS OF THE 200 MILES OR WHATEVER IT IS. JUSTICE WAINER APTER: 257 00:27:06.157 --> 00:27:12.890 BUT THEN YOU GET INTO THE -- I THINK THIS IS WHAT JUSTICE PATTERSON WAS ASKING. HOW 258 00:27:12.890 --> 00:27:17.766 IS IT A COURT'S RESPONSIBILITY TO DECIDE OKAY, IN A NEWSPAPER ARTICLE ABOUT A PUBLIC OFFICIAL 259 00:27:17.766 --> 00:27:25.202 WHO IS SELLING DRUGS, THE CASE, THE HOUSE NUMBER IS INTEGRAL TO THE STORY, BUT IN A NEWSPAPER 260 00:27:25.202 --> 00:27:32.314 ARTICLE ABOUT A PUBLIC OFFICIAL WITH A NO SHOW JOB WHO DOESN'T LIVE IN THE TOWN THAT HE IS 261 00:27:32.314 --> 00:27:38.123 IN THEORY SERVING, THE STREET ADDRESS IS NOT RELEVANT TO THE STORY WITHOUT INFRINGING 262 00:27:38.123 --> 00:27:43.138 ON THE FIRST AMENDMENT FREEDOM OF THE PRESS. SUSAN K. O'CONNOR: BECAUSE 263 00:27:43.138 --> 00:27:49.956 I THINK THE COURT AGAIN, BASED ON THE CASES CONTENT FORM AN CONTEXT AND TO DETERMINE 264 00:27:49.956 --> 00:27:55.561 WHETHER OR NOT IT IS RELATED TO OR IT SERVES AN INTEREST OF THE HIGHEST ORDER. 265 00:27:55.561 --> 00:28:01.397 JUSTICE PATTERSON: SO YOU WOULD CONCEDE THAT IF A PUBLIC OFFICIAL IS EXCUSED OF SELLING 266 00:28:01.397 --> 00:28:09.764 DRUGS OUT OF THEIR HOUSE, THE HOUSE ADDRESS IS RELATED TO THE SUBJECT OF THE STORY? 267 00:28:09.764 --> 00:28:13.760 SUSAN K. O'CONNOR: I WOULD CONCEDE THAT IT MAY BE. JUSTICE 268 00:28:13.760 --> 00:28:20.780 PATTERSON: BUT IF THE WRONGDOING, NOT ILLEGALITY HERE, BUT WRONGDOING THAT IS BEING ALLEGED 269 00:28:20.780 --> 00:28:27.863 IS TO BE LIVING IN ONE PLACE THAT MAKES IT NOT FEASIBLE TO GET FROM POINT ACHL TO POINT 270 00:28:27.863 --> 00:28:33.771 B AND WORK AT THE JOB THAT YOU'RE BEING PAID FOR EVERYDAY, THEN THE LOCATION OF THAT HOUSE 271 00:28:33.771 --> 00:28:39.552 IS ALWAYS GOING TO BE NOT RELATED? SUSAN K. O'CONNOR: IT WOULD BE IMMATERIAL 272 00:28:39.552 --> 00:28:47.841 IN THIS CASE. IF THERE ARE OTHER FACTS IN OTHER CASES, I DON'T WANT TO ADDRESS IT, BUT 273 00:28:47.841 --> 00:28:54.108 IN MOST INSTANCES, IF THE THRUST OF THE ARGUMENT IS THAT CAPUTO IS A NO SHOW BECAUSE OF 274 00:28:54.108 --> 00:28:59.927 DISTANCE, PROVIDING A STREET ADDRESS AND A HAVE STREET NUMBER DOES NOTHING WITH RESPECT TO 275 00:28:59.927 --> 00:29:07.440 THAT ANALYSIS. IT IS IN THE WORDS OF JUDGE RAY SUPERFLUOUS. JUSTICE WAINER 276 00:29:07.440 --> 00:29:16.204 APTER: THE CITIES PRESS RELEASE THAT SAID QUOTE, THAT KRATOVIL HAS TRIED TO CON TEN WITHOUT 277 00:29:16.204 --> 00:29:22.378 FACTUAL SUPPORT THAT MR. CAPUTO HAS A NO SHOW JOB AND THAT CON TENGZ RAISED BY MR. KRATOVIL 278 00:29:22.378 --> 00:29:27.126 IN HIS LAWSUIT COULD NOT BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH AND I THINK YOUR ADVERSARIES POINT 279 00:29:27.126 --> 00:29:32.290 WAS IN ORDER TO RESPOND TO THAT AND IN ORDER TO EXPLAIN WHY MR. KRATOVIL DOES NOT BELIEVE 280 00:29:32.290 --> 00:29:38.634 THAT HIS ALLEGATIONS ARE NOT FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH, HE NEEDED TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL 281 00:29:38.634 --> 00:29:45.030 DETAILS. AGAIN, WHERE DOES A COURT DECIDE, YES, IT'S CLOSE ENOUGH, IT'S NOT 282 00:29:45.030 --> 00:29:50.716 CLOSE ENOUGH? THE U.S. SUPREME COURT SEEMS TO TAKE AN EXTRAORDINARILY BROAD 283 00:29:50.716 --> 00:29:55.930 VIEW IN FLORIDA STAR WHERE THEY DON'T EVEN ANALYZE WHETHER THE VICTIM'S NAME WAS 284 00:29:55.930 --> 00:29:59.994 NECESSARY TO THE ARTICLE. THEY SAY THE ARTICLE IS A MATTER OF PUBLIC CONCERN, IT'S ABOUT 285 00:29:59.994 --> 00:30:05.850 A YIEM, THEREFORE YOU CANNOT CONSTITUTIONALLY PUNISH THE REPORTER FOR REPORTING THE 286 00:30:05.850 --> 00:30:10.198 VICTIM'S NAME EVEN THOUGH WE'RE NOT GOING TO SAY THAT THE VICTIM'S NAME WAS NECESSARY TO 287 00:30:10.198 --> 00:30:13.569 THE ARTICLE OR EVEN RELEVANT TO THE ARTICLE. SUSAN K. O'CONNOR: LET ME 288 00:30:13.569 --> 00:30:21.581 JUST BACK UP FOR A MINUTE. IN THIS INSTANCE, THE QUESTION BECOMES AGAIN AND 289 00:30:21.581 --> 00:30:27.361 UNDERSTAND THE VICTIM -- THAT THERE WAS A STATUTE, BUT IN THIS INSTANCE THERE IS A 290 00:30:27.361 --> 00:30:35.625 HIGHEST INTEREST OF THE ORDER AND THE IDEA IS THE FIRM OF PERSONAL PRIVACY IN IF HOME THE 291 00:30:35.625 --> 00:30:43.890 RIGHT TO BE LEFT ALONE AS JUDGE BRAND DIEZ SAID AND ALSO A QUESTION OF SAFETY AND SECURITY 292 00:30:43.890 --> 00:30:49.302 SO THE QUESTION BECOMES IF PUBLISHING THAT STREET ADDRESS AND THAT STREET NAME WHAT DOES 293 00:30:49.302 --> 00:30:54.487 THAT ADD TO THAT STORY? IT DOES NOT REFUTE I THINK IN TERMS OF WHAT YOUR 294 00:30:54.487 --> 00:30:59.857 QUESTION IS, IT DOES NOT REFUTE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE CITY OF NEW BRUNSWICK HAS 295 00:30:59.857 --> 00:31:06.605 ALLEGED IN THAT PRESS RELEASE. THE PRESS RELEASE SPECIFICALLY SAYS THE SAME THING THIS 296 00:31:06.605 --> 00:31:12.572 CASE HAS SAID ALL THE TIME THAT HE LIVES IN A DIFFERENT TIME, IT'S X NUMBER OF MILES AWAY 297 00:31:12.572 --> 00:31:17.748 AND THAT CAN BE PUBLISHED BUT ADDING THAT PRESS RELEASE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SAYING 298 00:31:17.748 --> 00:31:23.970 HE LIVES AT 123 MAIN STREET IN NEW BRUNSWICK OR 123 EAST BRUNSWICK. JUSTICE 299 00:31:23.970 --> 00:31:28.762 WAINER APTER: THAT SEEMS TO BE CONFLATING WHETHER IT IS AN ISSUE OF PUBLIC CONCERN BETWEEN 300 00:31:28.762 --> 00:31:33.712 WHETHER IT IS AIMED AT AN INTEREST OF THE HIGHEST ORDER. WHEN THE FLORIDA 301 00:31:33.712 --> 00:31:42.540 STAR. THERE ARE THREE MRONGS IS IT A MATTER OF PUBLIC CONCERN, WHAT IS THE 302 00:31:42.540 --> 00:31:47.529 STATE INTEREST THAT THE STATE IS TRYING TO ADVANCE AND IS THE STATUTE NARROWLY TAILORED 303 00:31:47.529 --> 00:31:51.281 TO THAT INTEREST. SUSAN K. O'CONNOR: CORRECT. AND YOUR QUESTION HAS TO 304 00:31:51.281 --> 00:31:55.665 DO WITH. JUSTICE WAINER APTER: PUBLIC CONCERN. SUSAN K. 305 00:31:55.665 --> 00:32:00.042 O'CONNOR: PUBLIC CONCERN. AND THE QUESTION IN TERMS OF PUBLIC CONCERN IS, 306 00:32:00.042 --> 00:32:06.207 AGAIN, DEPENDENT UPON THE FACTS. I UNDERSTAND WHAT THE FLORIDA STAR'S CASE SAID, BUT 307 00:32:06.207 --> 00:32:14.608 IT HAS TO DO WITH -- IT HAD TO DO WITH -- THE QUESTION OF PRIVACY REALLY WAS AN ISSUE. 308 00:32:14.608 --> 00:32:19.751 IT CAME UP. IN THIS INSTANCE AGAIN IT'S PRIVACY. JUSTICE PATTERSON: IF WE 309 00:32:19.751 --> 00:32:24.746 ARE TALKING ABOUT SECURITY, FLORIDA STAR REPRESENTED A VERY SIGNIFICANT THREAT TO 310 00:32:24.746 --> 00:32:30.569 POTENTIALLY AN INDIVIDUAL'S SECURITY WITH THE HOME ADDRESS OF A SEXUAL ASSAULT VICTIM WITH 311 00:32:30.569 --> 00:32:41.002 A PERPETRATOR STILL NOT APPREHENDED, WHICH COULD HAVE PUT THIS INDIVIDUAL IN SOME REAL 312 00:32:41.002 --> 00:32:52.476 PERIL AND THE COURT RULED THAT THAT WAS SUFFICIENTLY RELATED OR THAT THE PUBLICATION 313 00:32:52.476 --> 00:32:57.986 WAS SUFFICIENTLY RELATED TO AN INTEREST OF PUBLIC CONCERN, WHICH WAS CRIME IN GENERAL. 314 00:32:57.986 --> 00:33:00.507 SUSAN K. O'CONNOR: CORRECT. JUSTICE PATTERSON: TO GET OVER 315 00:33:00.507 --> 00:33:07.366 THAT HURDLE SO HOW DO YOU GET AROUND FLORIDA STAR? SUSAN K. O'CONNOR: AS I 316 00:33:07.366 --> 00:33:14.039 SAID, I THINK THAT THE PRIVACY IN SOMEONE'S HOME, IT HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED IN DOE V IMPORTANT 317 00:33:14.039 --> 00:33:21.183 RITS WHICH YOU KNOW IS THE MEGAN'S LAW CONCERN, I THINK IT IS DLS A DOG LICENSE CASE THAT 318 00:33:21.183 --> 00:33:27.945 THIS COURT HAS DECIDED CALLED BOES SEE AND WITH RESPECT TO BOES SEE VERSUS JERSEY CITY, 319 00:33:27.945 --> 00:33:35.377 EXCUSE ME AND WITH RESPECT TO THE DISSENT, THE DISSENT HAD INDICATED IT WAS AGAIN, PEOPLE'S 320 00:33:35.377 --> 00:33:42.074 RIEKTS TO HAVE PERSONAL, PRIVATE INFORMATION PROTECTED, WHICH WAS A DOG LICENSING CASE. 321 00:33:42.074 --> 00:33:46.998 JUSTICE PATTERSON: LET ME PERHAPS BE A LITTLE CLEARER WITH MY QUESTION. 322 00:33:46.998 --> 00:33:52.910 THE SUPREME COURT WAS ARTICULATING THE FIRST AMENDMENT STANDARD WHICH BIND 323 00:33:52.910 --> 00:34:01.138 ALL STATES AND THE SUPREME COURT FOUND THAT THE FIRST AMENDMENT OVERRODE OR ESSENTIAL 324 00:34:01.138 --> 00:34:08.301 LY GRANTED THE AS-APPLIED CHALLENGE TO THE STATUTE THAT BARRED THE PUBLICATION OF A SEXUAL 325 00:34:08.301 --> 00:34:13.462 ASSAULT VICTIM'S ADDRESS. SUSAN K. O'CONNOR: YES. JUSTICE 326 00:34:13.462 --> 00:34:19.444 PATTERSON: SO HOW IS IT -- THAT WOULD SEEM TO ME TO BE A MORE SERIOUS THREAT THAN IS 327 00:34:19.444 --> 00:34:29.627 INVOLVED HERE OR AT LEAST ARGUABLY. HOW CAN WE BOUNDS UNDER THE FEDERAL 328 00:34:29.627 --> 00:34:34.432 CONSTITUTION BY FLORIDA STAR, WHAT IS YOUR ARGUMENT AS TO HOW THIS CASE IS DIFFERENT? 329 00:34:34.432 --> 00:34:41.576 SUSAN K. O'CONNOR: MAYBE I AM BEING GIN ARTICULATE ABOUT THIS, BUT IF THE 330 00:34:41.576 --> 00:34:50.898 CASE IS DIFFERENT IN TERMS OF WITH RESPECT TO HOW THE COURT LOOKED AT IT AN HOW THE COURT 331 00:34:50.898 --> 00:34:55.815 LOOKED AT IT WITH RESPECT TO AND I UNDERSTAND SAFETY WAS AN ISSUE THERE AND SAFETY 332 00:34:55.815 --> 00:35:03.016 OBVIOUSLY IS AN ISSUE HERE, BUT HERE IT IS A PERSONAL HOME ADDRESS, WHICH THIS STATE HAS 333 00:35:03.016 --> 00:35:13.550 INDICATED IS OF THE HIGHEST ORDER AND THE PROTECTION AND SAFETY OF COVERED PERSONS. 334 00:35:13.550 --> 00:35:16.872 JUDGE SABATINO: I HAVE A QUESTION I ASKED ON THE OTHER SIDE BEFORE ABOUT 335 00:35:16.872 --> 00:35:25.803 SECTION A 2 AT THE END WHERE NOT ONLY IS THERE AFTER NOTICE IS GIVEN AN OBLIGATION OF THE 336 00:35:25.803 --> 00:35:34.167 PARTY TO STOP DISSEMINATING IT AND THIS IS IN THE LETTER THAT WAS SENT TO THE PLAINTIFF 337 00:35:34.167 --> 00:35:42.353 ON BEHALF OF YOUR CLIENTS, I HEREBY REQUEST THAT YOU CEASE TO DISCLOSE SUCH INFORMATION 338 00:35:42.353 --> 00:35:49.592 AND, AND REMOVE THE PROCEED TENTHD INFORMATION FROM THE INTERNET OR OTHERWISE MADE 339 00:35:49.592 --> 00:35:53.273 AVAILABLE. THAT REMOVAL LANGUAGE TRACKS THE STATUTE. SUSAN K. O'CONNOR: 340 00:35:53.273 --> 00:35:57.963 ABSOLUTELY. JUDGE SABATINO: WE KNOW AT THIS CASE AT THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING 341 00:35:57.963 --> 00:36:02.702 THE ADDRESS WAS DISCLOSED BY THE PLAINTIFF. WHAT WOULD YOU BE SEEKING TO HAVE HIM DO 342 00:36:02.702 --> 00:36:10.244 TO COMPLY WITH THAT PART OF THE STATUTE IF IN PARTICULAR THE CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS OR 343 00:36:10.244 --> 00:36:16.005 MINTSZ HAD ALREADY BEEN MADE KNOWN TO FOLKS OUTSIDE OF THE ROOM AT THAT TIME. WHAT 344 00:36:16.005 --> 00:36:20.767 PRACTICALLY DOES THAT OBLIGATION THAT YOU SAID IN THAT LETTER HAD TO BE FULFILLED, WHAT 345 00:36:20.767 --> 00:36:25.882 DOES IT INVOLVED? SUSAN K. O'CONNOR: SO, CEASE THE DISCLOSURE OF THE 346 00:36:25.882 --> 00:36:30.804 INFORMATION OR REMOVE THE PROTECTED INFORMATION FROM THE INTERNET OR OTHERWISE MADE 347 00:36:30.804 --> 00:36:38.706 AVAILABLE, THE LETTER CAME OUT OBVIOUSLY 12 DAYS AFTER THAT CITY COUNCIL MEETING AND I BELIEVE 348 00:36:38.706 --> 00:36:45.776 IT IS IN THE PLAINTIFF'S -- THE PLAINTIFF OBTAINED A REQUEST FOR THE VIDEO WHICH WAS 349 00:36:45.776 --> 00:36:50.072 REDABLTD BECAUSE OF THAT ISSUE PROVIDING THAT HOME ADDRESS. JUDGE SABATINO: 350 00:36:50.072 --> 00:36:54.182 THE VIDEO CONTROLLED BY THE CITY. SUSAN K. O'CONNOR: CORRECT. 351 00:36:54.182 --> 00:36:58.352 JUDGE SABATINO: BUT THERE IS A LOT OF WAYS THAT LOCAL EVENTS ARE ALREADY ON THE INTERNET 352 00:36:58.352 --> 00:37:06.248 BY PEOPLE BEYOND, YOU KNOW, THE GOVERNMENT AGENCY ITSELF SO WHAT IS THE PLAINTIFF SUPPOSED 353 00:37:06.248 --> 00:37:12.225 TO DO TO REMOVE IT WHERE THE INFORMATION IS OTHERWISE MADE AVAILABLE? IT'S ALREADY IN 354 00:37:12.225 --> 00:37:17.347 THE PUBLIC DOMAIN, ISN'T IT? SUSAN K. O'CONNOR: IT IS IN THE PUBLIC -- 355 00:37:17.347 --> 00:37:22.588 WELL, I DON'T BELIEVE IN THIS INSTANCE IT WENT INTO THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. I DO NOT MR. 356 00:37:22.588 --> 00:37:28.168 KRATOVIL HAD HIS OWN VIDEO RECORDER THERE TO MY KNOWLEDGE BECAUSE I'VE LOOKED FOR IT, HE 357 00:37:28.168 --> 00:37:34.942 HASN'T PUBLISHED IT. HE'S SIMPLY ASKED NEW BRUNSWICK FOR IT. WITH RESPECT TO ANY OTHER 358 00:37:34.942 --> 00:37:41.433 APPLICATIONS, I HAVE NOT FOUND THAT AND I HAVE LOOKED. NO. 1. NO. 2, HAD 359 00:37:41.433 --> 00:37:48.473 THERE BEEN IN THERE, LET'S SAY THE PATCH, FOR INSTANCE, IF A LETTER WENT TO THE PATCH 360 00:37:48.473 --> 00:37:53.635 SAYING PLEASE TAKE THAT DOWN BECAUSE IT SHOWS PROTECTED INFORMATION, THAT HAS NOTHING 361 00:37:53.635 --> 00:38:00.689 TO DO, IF YOU WILL, WITH MR. KRATOVIL, RIGHT, BASE EVEN THOUGH MR. KRATOVIL DIVULGED THAT 362 00:38:00.689 --> 00:38:05.524 INFORMATION, IT'S THE PATH L PATCH THAT WOULD HAVE TO TAKE THAT DOWN. JUDGE 363 00:38:05.524 --> 00:38:10.883 SABATINO: SO IF SOMEONE WERE TRYING TO AVOID THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE STAT ACTUALITY, THEY 364 00:38:10.883 --> 00:38:15.940 COULD IMMEDIATELY RELEASE IT TO THE PATCH AND OTHER PLACES THAT THEY CAN'T CONTROL AND 365 00:38:15.940 --> 00:38:21.707 THEN AFTER THEY RECEIVE A LETTER, WELL, I CAN'T CONTROL THESE OTHER PLACES THAT ARE NOW 366 00:38:21.707 --> 00:38:28.096 BROADCASTING THIS ALL OVER SOCIETY AND ESSENTIALLY DEFEAT THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THE 367 00:38:28.096 --> 00:38:30.599 STATUTE. SUSAN K. O'CONNOR: THAT'S INTERESTING BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK AT SUBSECTION 368 00:38:30.599 --> 00:38:36.655 S OF THAT STATUTE IT SAYS NOTHING HEREIN WILL BE, FAILURE TO REMOVE INFORMATION FROM PREVIOUSLY 369 00:38:36.655 --> 00:38:46.534 PRINTED NEWSPAPERS, TELEPHONE DIRECTORIES, DIRECTORY ASSISTANCE, ETC. SO. 370 00:38:46.534 --> 00:38:50.595 JUDGE SABATINO: I AM JUST WONDERING SOMEBODY COULD AVOID THE STATUTE BY 371 00:38:50.595 --> 00:38:55.510 DOING QUICK DISCLOSURE TO DISSEMINATE TORS THAT THEY CAN'T CONTROL. SUSAN K. 372 00:38:55.510 --> 00:39:00.018 O'CONNOR: SO THE QUESTION ACTUALLY BECOMES HAD MR. KRATOVIL RECEIVED THE LETTER BEFORE 373 00:39:00.018 --> 00:39:08.239 THAT CITY COUNCIL MEETING I WOULD SUGGEST TO THIS COURT THAT HE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE 374 00:39:08.239 --> 00:39:14.221 TO PUT OUT INTO PUBLIC THE INFORMATION WITH RESPECT TO CAPUTO'S HOME ADDRESS OR EVEN 375 00:39:14.221 --> 00:39:20.465 SUPPLIED A VOTER REGISTRATION INFORMATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL PEOPLE. HE WAS NOT ON NOTICE 376 00:39:20.465 --> 00:39:24.936 AT THE TIME OF THAT COUNCIL MEETING. JUDGE SABATINO: THE WORD CEASE AN IT'S 377 00:39:24.936 --> 00:39:31.554 FOLLOWED BY REMOVE SUGGESTS NOT ONLY IS THERE A PROSPECTIVE OBLIGATION TO NOT DISSEMINATE 378 00:39:31.554 --> 00:39:36.689 ANYMORE BUT TO TAKE REMEDIAL STOEPS ABOUT WHAT YOU'VE ALREADY DONE. SUSAN K. 379 00:39:36.689 --> 00:39:42.992 O'CONNOR: THERE DOES SEEM TO BE THAT IN A 1 AND, AS I SAID, IT SEEMS TO CONCERN ALSO 380 00:39:42.992 --> 00:39:51.095 SUBSECTION F BUT I DWO BELIEVE THAT -- ASSUME THAT ON MAY 4, MR. KRATOVIL HAD PUBLISHED 381 00:39:51.095 --> 00:39:57.252 HIS ARTICLE AND HE HAD NAMED THE STREET ADDRESS AND THE STREET NAME HE DIDN'T JUST SAY 382 00:39:57.252 --> 00:40:04.097 FROM CAPE MAY TO NEW BRUNSWICK, IF HE DID HE DID NOT RECEIVE THE LETTER UNTIL MAY 15TH. 383 00:40:04.097 --> 00:40:12.374 SO AT THAT TIME HE WAS NOT NOTIFIED, A, THAT TONY CAPUTO WAS A COVERED PERSON AND B, THAT 384 00:40:12.374 --> 00:40:20.891 DANIEL'S LAW WOULD APPLY SO IN THAT INSTANCE, HAD HE PUBLISHED THAT EVENING OF THE COUNCIL 385 00:40:20.891 --> 00:40:26.819 MEETING AND HAD NOT RECEIVED THAT OPT IN LETTER WHICH WAS THE PREREQUISITE I THINK THAT 386 00:40:26.819 --> 00:40:31.269 THIS CASE WOULDN'T BE HERE. JUDGE SABATINO: WE WOULD HAVE HAD NO REMOVAL 387 00:40:31.269 --> 00:40:35.466 OBLIGATION. SUSAN K. O'CONNOR: IT DOES SAY TO REMOVE THE PROTECTED INFORMATION 388 00:40:35.466 --> 00:40:41.433 UNDER SUBSECTION 2, CEASE THE DISCLOSURE AND REMOVE THE PROCEED TEKD INFORMATION BECAUSE 389 00:40:41.433 --> 00:40:47.539 IT HAS TO DO WITH DISCLOSE, REDROES PUBLISH AN REPUBLISH AND SO ONCE THAT DISCLOSURE IS 390 00:40:47.539 --> 00:40:54.347 MADE TO CONTINUE ON THE REDISCLOSURE, BUT AS TO YOUR QUESTION, AS TO ASSUME THAT IT'S 391 00:40:54.347 --> 00:41:02.784 PICKED UP BY EVERY NEWSPAPER IN THE COUNTRY, MR. KRATOVIL WOULD HAVE NO ABILITY TO SAY 392 00:41:02.784 --> 00:41:08.319 TO THE WASHINGTON POST PLEASE TAKE THAT DOWN, LETTERS WOULD THEN HAVE -- IT WOULD BE A 393 00:41:08.319 --> 00:41:14.163 FLAW. JUDGE SABATINO: HE WOULD BE ADVISED TO TAKE IT DOWN FROM HIS OWN BLOG 394 00:41:14.163 --> 00:41:17.955 OR WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT. SUSAN K. O'CONNOR: OBVIOUSLY LETTERS WOULD 395 00:41:17.955 --> 00:41:23.442 HAVE TO GO OUT TO EVERYONE, WASHINGTON POST, WHOEVER ELSE TO INDICATE THAT THEY NEED TO 396 00:41:23.442 --> 00:41:28.319 TAKE THAT DOWN AN ONCE THEY HAVE THAT INFORMATION THEN THEY HAVE THE TEN-DAY PERIOD WHERE 397 00:41:28.319 --> 00:41:31.964 THEY HAVE TO MAKE THAT DECISION AS TO WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO. JUSTICE 398 00:41:31.964 --> 00:41:38.269 PATTERSON: YOU MENTIONED THE OPRA PROVISION REGARDING ADDRESSES, WAS THE CLERK INCORRECT, 399 00:41:38.269 --> 00:41:48.420 I'M NOT SAYING ANYTHING PEJORATIVE, BUT INCORRECT IN INTERPRETING OPRA TO REQUIRE THE 400 00:41:48.420 --> 00:41:52.389 DISCLOSURE OF THIS INFORMATION? SUSAN K. O'CONNOR: SO I WILL SAY THIS, 401 00:41:52.389 --> 00:42:01.040 I THINK -- IT'S NOTHING THAT THIS COURT I AM SURE IS NOT AWARE OF, BUT OPRA REQUESTS ARE 402 00:42:01.040 --> 00:42:08.664 PLENTIFUL, BOUNTIFUL AND IF THERE ARE CERTAIN PERIODS OF TIME YOU HAVE TO ANSWER IT. 403 00:42:08.664 --> 00:42:14.375 IF YOU DO NOT ANSWER WITHIN THAT TIME THERE ARE FINES AN ATTORNEY'S FEES AND A LOT OF 404 00:42:14.375 --> 00:42:25.419 ISSUES WITH RESPECT TO THAT. I THINK THAT COLLECTION DO THEIR VERY BAS, BEST. 405 00:42:25.419 --> 00:42:29.463 JUSTICE PATTERSON: THE COURT DEALS WITH OPRA CASES ALL THE TIME AND R CERTAINLY 406 00:42:29.463 --> 00:42:34.733 I AM AWARE OF THAT. ANOTHER WAY IN WHICH THIS CASE WOULD NOT HAVE COME TO 407 00:42:34.733 --> 00:42:41.937 WHERE WE ARE TODAY IS IF THE ADDRESS HAD NOT BEEN DISCLOSED IN RESPONSE TO THAT OPRA REQUEST. 408 00:42:41.937 --> 00:42:43.748 SUSAN K. O'CONNOR: CORRECT. JUSTICE PATTERSON: MY QUESTION 409 00:42:43.748 --> 00:42:49.053 TO YOU IS VERY PRECISE I AM NOT BLAMING THE CLERK I UNDERSTAND THE PRESSURE IS ON THE 410 00:42:49.053 --> 00:42:54.594 CLERKS BUT WAS IT AN INCORRECT INTERPRETATION OF OPRA TO RELEASE THAT INFORMATION. 411 00:42:54.594 --> 00:42:59.998 SUSAN K. O'CONNOR: I BELIEVE THAT THE CLERK DID NOT ABIDE BY 4718-3, YES. I BELIEVE 412 00:42:59.998 --> 00:43:08.789 THAT THE CLERK INITIALLY ABIDED BY THAT BUT THEN HAD A COLLOQUY WITH MR. KRATOVIL AND 413 00:43:08.789 --> 00:43:14.659 DID NOT. JUSTICE PATTERSON: SO WHAT IS YOUR RESPONSE TO MR. SHALOM'S ASSERTION 414 00:43:14.659 --> 00:43:26.700 THAT BETTER TRAINING OF OPRA COLLECTION I ASSUME SPECIFICALLY DEALING WHAT GOES ON WITH 415 00:43:26.700 --> 00:43:37.041 ADDRESSES AND ALSO DANIEL'S LAW IS ONE WAY IN WHICH TO MAKE THIS CASE, IF NOT UNIQUE 416 00:43:37.041 --> 00:43:44.091 EXTRAORDINARILY RARE. SUSAN K. O'CONNOR: I THINK THAT -- I AM ALWAYS IN 417 00:43:44.091 --> 00:43:50.498 FAVOR OF BETTER TRAINING PEOPLE NO. 1, NO. 2, BETTER TRAINING CLERKS IS STILL NOT GOING 418 00:43:50.498 --> 00:43:57.010 TO OBVIATE THE ISSUE WITH RESPECT TO A MISTAKEN BELIEF IN TERMS OF TURNING OVER DOCUMENTS. 419 00:43:57.010 --> 00:44:01.519 ASSUME THAT THE CLERK AND I AM GOING TO ASSUME THIS THAT THE CLERK KNEW OF 420 00:44:01.519 --> 00:44:11.245 4718-3 AND FORGOT OR JUST INADVERTENTLY DISCLOSED THAT INFORMATION, BETTER TRAINING ISN'T 421 00:44:11.245 --> 00:44:19.125 GOING TO HELP THAT. PUTTING THAT ONUS ON COLLECTION WHO AS I SAID ARE OVERWORKED, 422 00:44:19.125 --> 00:44:30.324 ETC., PUTTING THAT ONUS AND THAT SOLE RESPONSIBILITY ON THAT CLERK, I THINK THAT -- 423 00:44:30.324 --> 00:44:35.510 PARTICULARLY, I THINK IT'S A SHARED RESPONSIBILITY WITH RESPECT TO THE PERSONAL ADDRESSES 424 00:44:35.510 --> 00:44:42.145 AND THE PROTECTION AS INDICATED IN DANIEL'S LAW AND THAT IS BASED ON THE FACT THAT IT 425 00:44:42.145 --> 00:44:50.064 IS BECAUSE OF AN INTEREST OF THE HIGHEST ORDER. WE KNOW WHAT HAPPENS WHEN PEOPLE FIND 426 00:44:50.064 --> 00:45:05.397 ADDRESSES AND TRY TO ROO ABLTH WITH RESPECT TO THOSE. ARE THERE ANY OTHER 427 00:45:05.397 --> 00:45:14.474 QUESTIONS? JUSTICE PATTERSON: ANY QUESTIONS? O'CONNOR THANK YOU. 428 00:45:14.474 --> 00:45:25.104 JUSTICE PATTERSON: MR. ZUCKERMAN. MICHAEL L. ZUCKERMAN: GOOD AFTERNOON, 429 00:45:25.104 --> 00:45:30.688 YOUR HONORS, MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT. I WANT TO DIVE RIGHT INTO THE COURT'S 430 00:45:30.688 --> 00:45:36.208 QUESTIONS BUT I WILL NOTE IN THE KOL KWEES THIS MORNING AND THIS AFTERNOON, I THINK THERE ARE 431 00:45:36.208 --> 00:45:40.348 SOME POINTS OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND MR. KRATOVIL. THEY ARE ALSO 432 00:45:40.348 --> 00:45:45.402 WORTH HIGHLIGHTING. FIRST OF ALL, IT SEEMS ALL AGREE NOW THIS IS JUST A QUESTION FOR 433 00:45:45.402 --> 00:45:49.888 COURTS AND I HEARD THIS MORNING THAT MR. KRATOVIL IS NOT CONTESTING THAT THIS IS A STATE 434 00:45:49.888 --> 00:45:56.937 INTEREST OF THE HIGHEST ORDER TO THE SECOND FLORIDA STAR FACTOR. AND THAT THERE IS SOME 435 00:45:56.937 --> 00:46:02.133 RELATIONAL INQUIRY THE COURTS SHOULD BE DOING TO FIGURE OUT WHETHER SOMETHING REALLY IS 436 00:46:02.133 --> 00:46:09.154 A MATTER OF PUBLIC CONCERN. NOW, I DO THINK THERE IS STILL HARDY AND SINCERE 437 00:46:09.154 --> 00:46:14.777 DISAGREEMENT ABOUT HOW FAR THE RELATIONAL INQUIRY GOES, WHETHER IT'S MET HERE AND WHAT HAPPENS 438 00:46:14.777 --> 00:46:22.621 ON THE THIRD FLORIDA STAR PRONG OR FACTOR ABOUT THE TAILORING OF DANIEL'S LAW HERE SO 439 00:46:22.621 --> 00:46:28.293 I WANT TO DIVE RIGHT INTO THOSE AND I JUST WANT TO START WITH THE CASE THAT IS ON EVERYONE'S 440 00:46:28.293 --> 00:46:34.167 MIND WHICH IS FLORIDA STAR AND THE IDEA THAT THERE HAS TO BE SOME REASONABLE RELATIONSHIP 441 00:46:34.167 --> 00:46:41.908 BETWEEN THE THING THAT IS A MATTER OF PUBLIC CONCERN THAT NO ONE IS DISPUTING IS A MATTER 442 00:46:41.908 --> 00:46:47.257 OF PUBLIC CONCERN AND THE SPECIFIC FACTS THAT PEOPLE ARE DISAGREEING ABOUT. SO, 443 00:46:47.257 --> 00:46:59.852 I WILL GO DIRECTLY TO THE LINE, INSTANCE PAGES 536 AND A 537 IN FLORIDA STAR JUSTICE WAINER 444 00:46:59.852 --> 00:47:05.546 APTER THAT THE COURT SEEMS TO TAKE I READ IT AS AMBIGUOUS BUT THERE IS CERTAINLY A BROAD 445 00:47:05.546 --> 00:47:12.054 STATEMENT THAT IT IS BECAUSE IT IS IN AN ARTICLE THAT IS ITSELF ABOUT A MATTER OF PUBLIC 446 00:47:12.054 --> 00:47:17.011 CONCERN THERE COULD BE A PUBLICATION, YOU COULD READ THAT TO SAY WELL IT'S AUTOMATICALLY 447 00:47:17.011 --> 00:47:21.462 IN THE FORCE FIELD OF THE MATTER OF PUBLIC CONCERN BECAUSE IT'S IN THE ARTICLE AND I 448 00:47:21.462 --> 00:47:25.736 DON'T THINK WHAT THEY ARE DOING THERE IS MAKING THAT BROAD READING AND I HAVEN'T HEARD 449 00:47:25.736 --> 00:47:31.191 MR. KRATOVIL ADVANCE THAT. I THINK WE AGREE THERE IS A RELATIONAL TEST. I THINK BECAUSE 450 00:47:31.191 --> 00:47:35.707 THERE IS NO OTHER CASE THAT ACTUALLY READ IT THAT WAY AT LEAST THAT I HAVE SEEN AND NOT 451 00:47:35.707 --> 00:47:39.897 ONE THAT MR. KRATOVIL HAS IDENTIFIED. THERE WERE SEVERAL SUPREME COURT CASES 452 00:47:39.897 --> 00:47:47.163 BEFORE FLORIDA STAR THAT DID A KIND OF INFORMATIONAL INQUIRY NOT PRECISELY IN THE 453 00:47:47.163 --> 00:47:52.166 TRUTHFUL MATTER OF PUBLIC CONCERN IN THE DOCTRINE BUT AS JUDGE SABATINO POINTED OUT IN 454 00:47:52.166 --> 00:47:56.051 OTHER PLACES WHERE THE COURT HAS TO FIGURE OUT IS SOMETHING A MATTER OF PUBLIC CONCERN 455 00:47:56.051 --> 00:48:01.429 OR A MATTER OF PRIVATE CONCERN YOU GET THAT IN THE ACTUAL MALICE CASES. YOU GET IT IN 456 00:48:01.429 --> 00:48:07.293 THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEE SPEECH CASES CON NICK VERSUS MIERS DOES AN ANALYSIS THAT REALLY WOULD 457 00:48:07.293 --> 00:48:12.056 MAKE NO SENSE IF YOU JUST GET IN THE FORCE FIELD OF PUBLIC CONCERN BECAUSE YOU'RE INSIDE 458 00:48:12.056 --> 00:48:17.365 A QUESTIONNAIRE THAT HAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH PUBLIC CONCERN. WE HIGHLIGHT IN OUR BRIEF, 459 00:48:17.365 --> 00:48:23.796 TIME MIK VERSUS FIRE STONE A CASE WHERE SOMEONE IS SAYING IT'S A DIVORCE CASE BUT IT'S 460 00:48:23.796 --> 00:48:27.830 ABOUT THE COURT, THE COURTS ARE A MATTER OF PUBLIC CONCERN. I DON'T THINK 461 00:48:27.830 --> 00:48:34.849 FLORIDA STAR AND TIME VER ES FIRE STONE REALLY CAN BE RIGHT ON THAT. ONE OF THEM HAS 462 00:48:34.849 --> 00:48:40.884 TO BE WRONG. IF FLORIDA STAR IS SAYING IN THAT ONE SENTENCE THE ONE THING I ADMIT IT IS 463 00:48:40.884 --> 00:48:47.581 SAYING TO SAY. I DON'T THINK FLORIDA SNAR IS OVERRULING, FIRE STONE, CON NICK VERSUS 464 00:48:47.581 --> 00:48:54.022 MIERS. I THINK THAT'S WHERE SNIDE DER IS VALUABLE BECAUSE SNOOID DER COMES BACK TO THE 465 00:48:54.022 --> 00:49:00.668 RECORD RELATES TO. AGAIN, WE CAN QUIBBLE OVER HOW STRONG OR WEAK THAT 466 00:49:00.668 --> 00:49:07.787 RELATIONSHIP HAS TO BE AND HOW MUCH DEFERENCE YOU GIVE TO A JOURNALIST ON IT. I 467 00:49:07.787 --> 00:49:13.301 THINK BEFORE AND AFTER FLORIDA STAR THE COURT HAS BEEN CLEAR THERE DOES HAVE TO BE A 468 00:49:13.301 --> 00:49:18.592 RELATIONSHIP. SO I WANT TO COMMENDS TO THE COURT ACTUALLY THE CASES THAT MR. KRATOVIL 469 00:49:18.592 --> 00:49:25.943 CITES, GIL BETTER VERSUS I THINK MEDICAL ECONOMICS CASE FROM THE 10TH CIRCUIT, QUOTED. 470 00:49:25.943 --> 00:49:32.778 NEWSWORTHY PUBLICATION MUST HAVE SOME SUBSTANTIAL RELEVANCE TO A MATTER OF 471 00:49:32.778 --> 00:49:37.595 LEGITIMATE PUBLIC INTEREST. HE CITED OTHER CASES THERE IS A CASE CALLED LOW FROM THE FIFTH 472 00:49:37.595 --> 00:49:43.425 CIRCUIT IN 2007 THAT SAYS IT HAS TO BE SUBSTANTIALLY RELATED, AGAIN HE CITES A CASE 473 00:49:43.425 --> 00:49:49.497 FROM TEXAS HOLES MAN DOES HAVE A LOGICAL NEXUS. I THINK WE'RE AGREEING THOSE ARE PRETTY 474 00:49:49.497 --> 00:49:54.236 GOOD TESTS. JUSTICE PATTERSON: LET ME ASK YOU ALGS BIT MORE PRECISELY BECAUSE 475 00:49:54.236 --> 00:49:59.898 SUBSTANTIALLY RELATED, WHAT IS SUBSTANTIALLY RELATED TO THE AREA OF PIB CONCERN. 476 00:49:59.898 --> 00:50:05.141 I THINK THE CRUX OF THIS IS WHAT IS IT. IS THE FACT THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH 477 00:50:05.141 --> 00:50:13.658 IN THIS CASE THE ADDRESS, JUST HAVE TO BE, AS YOU REFERRED TO IT, IN THE FORCE FIELD JUST 478 00:50:13.658 --> 00:50:19.077 BECAUSE IT'S IN THE ARTICLE OR DOES THE FACT THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH HAVE TO BE RELATED 479 00:50:19.077 --> 00:50:25.200 TO THE ISSUE OF PUBLIC CONCERN. SK SUSSEX COUNTY I THINK THE FACT HAS TO BE RELATED TO 480 00:50:25.200 --> 00:50:32.498 THE ISSUE OF PUBLIC CONCERN AND I WILL GIVE YOU A PRECEDENT ANSWER TO THAT, I THINK PRECEDENTS 481 00:50:32.498 --> 00:50:38.256 IS PRETTY CLEAR NOT SXRUS THE LOWER CASES THAT I CITED THAT MR. YACHT ALSO CITES I THINK 482 00:50:38.256 --> 00:50:44.845 WE'RE AGREEING THOSE ARE. I AGREE THERE IS ONE THE ONE LINE WHERE THEY TALK 483 00:50:44.845 --> 00:50:52.253 ABOUT THE OVERALL THRUST OF THE PROCEED FES AND THOER TALKING THERE ABOUT TWO SPECIFIC 484 00:50:52.253 --> 00:51:01.276 SIGNS ONE SAYS YOU'RE GOING TO HELL AND THE OTHER ONE SAYS GOD HATES YOU. IT'S AN AB 485 00:51:01.276 --> 00:51:08.380 HORNTS PROTEST BUT IT IS A MATTER OF PUBLIC CONCERN AND THERE IS SOME VIEW ABOUT THOSE 486 00:51:08.380 --> 00:51:14.730 TWO SPECIFIC ONES WHETHER THE PROTEST TERSE ARE TALKING ABOUT MR. SNOOID DER AND HIS FAMILY 487 00:51:14.730 --> 00:51:19.773 OR MAKING A GENERAL STATEMENT. I THINK THE POINT THE COURT IS MAKING IS THAT SHOULD FALL 488 00:51:19.773 --> 00:51:24.750 IN WITH THE BROADER STATEMENT IT'S TOO THIN A READ TO SAY WHAT THEY ARE DOING IN THOSE 489 00:51:24.750 --> 00:51:32.667 TWO SIGNS IS SINGLING OUT MR. SNOOID DER. THEN ON PAGE 455 IN SNOOID THE COURT 490 00:51:32.667 --> 00:51:39.634 GOES RIGHT TO THAT QUESTION ON WHETHER OR NOT THE BAP TIS CHURCH HAS EFFECTIVELY SMUG 491 00:51:39.634 --> 00:51:44.665 LD IN AN ATTACK ON THE SNOOID'S SPECIFICALLY AND THEY EVER A WHOLE PARAGRAPH OR TWO WHERE 492 00:51:44.665 --> 00:51:50.582 THEY KNOCK DOWN THAT ARGUMENT. STALKING HORSE OR TROEJ JANUARY HORSE FOR 493 00:51:50.582 --> 00:51:56.665 THE ATTACK ON A PERSON. I THINK THAT PARAGRAPH OR WHATEVER IT IS ONLY MAKES 494 00:51:56.665 --> 00:52:01.428 SENSE IF YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THERE IS NO FORCE FIELD THAT ALLOWS YOU TO PUT SOMETHING 495 00:52:01.428 --> 00:52:07.601 INTO THE ARTICLE THAT IS NOT RELATED TO THE MATTER OF PUBLIC CONCERN. WE GIVE SOME 496 00:52:07.601 --> 00:52:13.471 EXAMPLES IN OUR BRIEF THAT I THINK HAS TO BE TRUE, LET ME GO STRAIGHT TO FLORIDA STAR 497 00:52:13.471 --> 00:52:18.609 ITSELF I WANT TO BE CRYSTAL CLEAR ON THAT CASE BECAUSE IT'S VERY IMPORTANT. ALL THAT IS 498 00:52:18.609 --> 00:52:23.724 AT ISSUE IN THAT CASE IS THE NAME OF THE VICTIM, THAT CASE IS NOT A CASE ABOUT THE ADDRESS 499 00:52:23.724 --> 00:52:30.706 OF THE VICTIM. AND WE HAVE OTHER LAWS THAT MAKE REALLY CLEAR THAT ALTHOUGH THIS PARTICULAR 500 00:52:30.706 --> 00:52:38.015 AS APPLIED CHALLENGE HAPPENS TO BE ABOUT DIRECT FOR CAPUTO'S HOME ADDRESS AND DANIEL'S LAW 501 00:52:38.015 --> 00:52:43.258 THERE ARE OTHER LAWS, TOO, THAT PROTECT AGAINST THE ADDRESSES OF VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC 502 00:52:43.258 --> 00:52:52.523 VIOLENCE, MINORS, VICTIMS OF SEXUAL ASSAULT, RAM MERE REZ IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE. THEY ALL 503 00:52:52.523 --> 00:52:58.339 MAKE SENSE BECAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE HOME BUT I DON'T SEE 504 00:52:58.339 --> 00:53:04.014 FLORIDA STAR IN ANY WAY SAYING THAT BECAUSE THE NAME OF THE VICTIM IS INSIDE THE FORCE 505 00:53:04.014 --> 00:53:09.924 FIELD WHICH I THINK IS DEBATABLE BUT FAIR BECAUSE THE IDENTITY OF A CRIME VICTIM IS SOMEWHAT 506 00:53:09.924 --> 00:53:13.769 CLOSER TO THE FACT OF THE YIEM. JUSTICE PATTERSON: DO YOU READ FLORIDA STAR 507 00:53:13.769 --> 00:53:19.631 TO STAND FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT BECAUSE THIS INDIVIDUAL WAS A CRIME VICTIM HER NAME IS 508 00:53:19.631 --> 00:53:27.261 RELATED TO THE OBVIOUS ISSUE OF GREAT PUBLIC CONCERN AND THAT IS CRIME BECAUSE THAT TO 509 00:53:27.261 --> 00:53:31.929 ME IS SUGGESTED BY THE LANGUAGE. MICHAEL L. ZUCKERMAN: I DON'T QUITE READ 510 00:53:31.929 --> 00:53:36.695 IT TO GO THAT FAR. I THINK IT GETS TO THE QUESTION OF HOW MUCH WEIGHT CAN YOU PUT ON 511 00:53:36.695 --> 00:53:40.698 THAT ONE SENTENCE IN FLORIDA STAR. JUSTICE WAINER APTER: IN TB ABSENCE 512 00:53:40.698 --> 00:53:45.256 OF ANY OTHER ANALYSIS, IF IT WAS THAT ONE SENTENCE BUT THEN THERE WERE SEVERAL 513 00:53:45.256 --> 00:53:49.355 PARAGRAPHS THAT DISCUSSED WHY THE NAME WAS SO IMPORTANT TO THE CRIME IN THIS PARTICULAR 514 00:53:49.355 --> 00:53:54.214 CASE OR WHY A NAME IS GENERALLY IMPORTANT TO A CRIME THEN I WOULD COMPLETELY AGREE WITH YOU, 515 00:53:54.214 --> 00:53:59.284 BUT THE ONLY THING THEY HAVE THAT CONNECTS THE NAME TO ANYTHING IS THAT ONE SENTENCE. 516 00:53:59.284 --> 00:54:02.383 MICHAEL L. ZUCKERMAN: I AGREE JUSTICE WAINER APTER BUT WHAT IS TELLING IS 517 00:54:02.383 --> 00:54:06.962 ALL THE OTHER SPACE IN THAT OPINION THAT THEY ARE SPENDING ON ALL THESE OTHER REASONS 518 00:54:06.962 --> 00:54:13.460 THAT THE FLORIDA STAR IN THAT CASE GETS OVER THE LINE AN WINCE THE CASE WHICH IS ARE ALL 519 00:54:13.460 --> 00:54:19.054 THE OTHER THINGS GOING ON IN THE THREE FACTOR TEST. THERE IS THE RELIANCE TEST, IT WAS 520 00:54:19.054 --> 00:54:25.815 PUT IN THE PRESS ROOM, IT CONVEYS THE MESSAGE, THEY SAY THIS TWICE AT 435 I THINK. 521 00:54:25.815 --> 00:54:29.036 JUSTICE WAINER APTER: JUSTICE PIERRE-LOUIS: THE COURT SAID IF WE WERE 522 00:54:29.036 --> 00:54:34.082 TO READ FLORIDA STAR TO READ I CAN'T REMEMBER THE LANGUAGE YOU HAVE BEEN USING THAT THE 523 00:54:34.082 --> 00:54:39.969 VICTIM'S NAME IS WITHIN THE PROTECTED SPOOEFR THE COURT ITSELF SAID THAT THEY ARE NOT 524 00:54:39.969 --> 00:54:45.150 SAYING THAT THERE ISN'T GOING TO BE A CASE THAT THERE MIGHT NOT BE A CASE WITH THE 525 00:54:45.150 --> 00:54:50.230 APPROPRIATE FACTS IN WHICH IMPOSING KRIL SANCTIONS FOR THE PUBLICATION OF A NAME OF A VICTIM 526 00:54:50.230 --> 00:54:57.498 MIGHT BE SO OVERWHELMINGLY NECESSARY TO ADVANCE THE INTERESTS AND SATISFY DAILY MAIL SO 527 00:54:57.498 --> 00:55:03.498 EVEN AFTER HAVING DETERMINE TD THGS PUBLIC INTEREST THAT IS RELATED TO THE KEFRNS OF A 528 00:55:03.498 --> 00:55:08.940 CRIME AND CRIME BEING COMMITTED, THE COURT LATER SAYS WELL, WE'RE NOT GOING TO SAY THAT 529 00:55:08.940 --> 00:55:13.802 THERE MIGHT NOT BE A CASE WITH THE APPROPRIATE FACTS BUT HERE ARE ALL THE REASONS OVER 530 00:55:13.802 --> 00:55:20.727 THE NEXT SEVERAL PAGES WHY IN FLORIDA STAR THEY DON'T GET OVER THE HUMP. 531 00:55:20.727 --> 00:55:25.848 MICHAEL L. ZUCKERMAN: I AGREE WITH THAT ONE HUNDRED PERCENT. THEY CITE ALL THE OTHER 532 00:55:25.848 --> 00:55:34.052 CASES IN BART TO SAY, WE'VE ALWAYS BEEN INCREDIBLY FACT SPECIFIC IN THESE NATURAL 533 00:55:34.052 --> 00:55:38.831 CEASE, TOTALLED EVERYTHING AND SEEN WHICH WAY IT FALSE. JUDGE SABATINO: 534 00:55:38.831 --> 00:55:43.063 LET ME GIVE YOU A FACT SPECIFIC HYPOTHETICAL THAT MIGHT HELP US UNDERSTAND THE LIMITS 535 00:55:43.063 --> 00:55:48.328 OF ALL OF THIS, COULD THERE BE A SITUATION WHERE THE PRECISE STREET ADDRESS IS SUFFICIENTLY 536 00:55:48.328 --> 00:55:55.242 RELATED TO THE JOURNALISM THAT WE WOULD ALLOW IT TO BE DISSEMINATED. I WAS THINKING OF 537 00:55:55.242 --> 00:56:05.286 AN EXAMPLE WHERE LET'S SAY A JUDGE WHO OWNS A HOME IS SIT SG ON A LAND INDICATION INVOLVING 538 00:56:05.286 --> 00:56:10.567 AN APPROVAL FOR SOME APPLICATION THAT IS ONLY A FEW BLOCKS FROM THE JUDGE'S HOUSE AND 539 00:56:10.567 --> 00:56:15.409 SOMEONE IS AWARE OF THAT AND THE JUDGE FOR WHATEVER REASON I AM NOT SUGGESTING ANY 540 00:56:15.409 --> 00:56:22.643 JUDGES WE KNOW WOULD DO THIS BUT DISQUALIFYING THE JUDGE SO WOULDN'T IN THAT INSTANCE THE 541 00:56:22.643 --> 00:56:28.831 EXACT ADDRESS WHERE THEY WANT TO SHOW THE PUBLIC THIS JUDGE'S HOUSE IS ONLY A HALF A BLOCK 542 00:56:28.831 --> 00:56:33.761 OR A BLOCK AWAY FROM THIS DEVELOPMENT THE JUDGE IS SITTING ON THE CASE WOULDN'T THAT BE 543 00:56:33.761 --> 00:56:38.627 AN INSTANCE THAT EVEN IF THE JUDGE OPTED IN AND HAS THE FULL PROTECTION OF DANIEL'S LAW 544 00:56:38.627 --> 00:56:44.082 WE MIGHT SAY THERE IS TOO MUCH OF A CONNECTION HERE, WOULD YOU AGREE THAT MIGHT BE AN 545 00:56:44.082 --> 00:56:48.803 ILLUSTRATION WHERE THE FIRST AMENDMENT GIVES WAY HERE. MICHAEL L. ZUCKERMAN: 546 00:56:48.803 --> 00:56:54.238 I THINK WE GAVE A VERY CLOSE COUSIN OF THAT IN OUR BRIEF. WE THOUGHT OF TWO SITUATIONS 547 00:56:54.238 --> 00:57:01.222 THAT SORT OF JUMPED OUT WHERE THE FIRST AMENDMENT INTEREST WOULD BE MORE RELEVANT, ONE 548 00:57:01.222 --> 00:57:07.498 IS KIND OF SHADY LAND USE DEALS OR SHADY ARRANGEMENTS INVOLVING THE PARCEL ITSELF AND 549 00:57:07.498 --> 00:57:12.642 THEN THE SECOND IS WHERE THERE IS SOMETHING ABOUT THE PARCEL ITSELF SO THE NEIGHBOR SZ 550 00:57:12.642 --> 00:57:18.806 HAVE A FAIR INTEREST IN KNOWING GEE THAT IS HAPPENING ON OUR BLOCK. JUDGE 551 00:57:18.806 --> 00:57:24.883 SABATINO: SO YOU THEN WOULD SAY I TAKE AWAY FROM THIS AS APPLIED CASE SHOULD BE WELL YOU 552 00:57:24.883 --> 00:57:31.926 NEVER CANNOT POST AN ADDRESS, IT ONLY YOU AGREE THAT WOULD BE AN OVERSTATEMENT OR TOO 553 00:57:31.926 --> 00:57:36.270 BROAD A TAKE AWAY FROM WHAT WE'RE DECIDING HERE. MICHAEL L. ZUCKERMAN: 554 00:57:36.270 --> 00:57:45.411 ABSOLUTELY JUDGE SABATINO. ALL YOU NEED TO SAY IN THIS SPECIFIC CASE IS NUB OF WHAT MR. 555 00:57:45.411 --> 00:57:51.583 KRATOVIL IS #140E HOURS AND THAT'S REALLY FAR. IT'S NOT A CASE ABOUT THE EXACT NUMBER 556 00:57:51.583 --> 00:57:57.897 OF INCHES SO YOU CAN GOOGLE THE MAP FROM THE WEST ENDS OF CAPE MAY TO THE EAST EVEND OR 557 00:57:57.897 --> 00:58:04.841 WHERE IN THE HOUSE HIS BEDROOM IS SO YOU CAN TIME IT OUT. HE LIVES ABOUT TWO HOURS AWAY 558 00:58:04.841 --> 00:58:14.095 AND THE TOWN IS RELEVANT TO THAT. JUSTICE PATTERSON: WHAT IS YOUR RESPONSE 559 00:58:14.095 --> 00:58:20.662 TO MR. KRATOVIL'S ARGUMENT TO WHAT THE TRIAL COURT AND APPELLATE DIVISION HERE WAS MAKE 560 00:58:20.662 --> 00:58:25.023 JUDGES INTO EDITORS. MICHAEL L. ZUCKERMAN: WE DISAGREE WITH THAT. WE THINK 561 00:58:25.023 --> 00:58:31.134 THIS IS -- ANY QUESTION ABOUT HOW FAR THE FIRST AMENDMENT APPLIES, IT'S A QUESTION ABOUT 562 00:58:31.134 --> 00:58:36.151 WHAT IS A MATTER OF PUBLIC CONCERN WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT AFFECTS -- THAT IS THE 563 00:58:36.151 --> 00:58:41.579 QUESTION FOR FIGURING OUT HOW FAR -- WHAT BEACH IS PROCEED TEKD OR NOT PROCEED TEBTD AND 564 00:58:41.579 --> 00:58:50.560 HOW FROEKTD IT IS, THAT'S A KWINT TES SENT L SHL QUESTION FOR JIJES. QUINTESSENTIAL QUESTION 565 00:58:50.560 --> 00:58:55.487 FOR JUDGES. NOW, I UNDERSTAND THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY ALWAYS A FUN RESPONSIBILITY. 566 00:58:55.487 --> 00:59:01.868 JUDGES HAVE HARD JOBS FOR LOTS OF DIFFERENT REASONS EVEN APART FROM THE ONE THAT 567 00:59:01.868 --> 00:59:06.801 MOTIVATED DANIEL'S LAW. THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF LAW. THE QUESTION IS WHAT DOES 568 00:59:06.801 --> 00:59:11.585 THE FIRST AMENDMENT SAY, HOW DOES IT APPLY IS THIS A MATTER OF PUBLIC CONCERN OR NOT AND 569 00:59:11.585 --> 00:59:16.380 THERE IS NO WAY TO DO THAT ANALYSIS WITHOUT THINKING ABOUT WHAT IS THIS ARTICLE ABOUT. 570 00:59:16.380 --> 00:59:21.111 JUDGE SABATINO: THE REQUEST TORE CANNOT RELY ON THE LAY DECISION OF THE 571 00:59:21.111 --> 00:59:27.206 RECORDS CUSTODIAN. MICHAEL L. ZUCKERMAN: ONE, I DON'T THINK YOU NEED TO 572 00:59:27.206 --> 00:59:35.292 GET THERE BECAUSE HERE, FLORIDA STAR GETS INTO ALL THAT ONCE ITS AT PRONG 3 WHERE IT'S 573 00:59:35.292 --> 00:59:40.774 PAST THE POST ON A MATTER OF PUBLIC CONCERN AND THEN IT GOES INTO WELL THEY GOT IT LAWFULLY. 574 00:59:40.774 --> 00:59:46.912 HERE, OF COURSE, WE'RE NOT AGREEING THAT EVEN THE PRECISE STREET ADDRESS NOT THE TOWN 575 00:59:46.912 --> 00:59:51.836 BUT THE PRECISE STREET ADDRESS IS A MATTER OF PUBLIC CONCERN IN THE FIRST PLACE BUT I 576 00:59:51.836 --> 00:59:56.549 DO THINK WHEN IT COMES TO DANIEL'S LAW IT WOULD BE A MISTAKE TO LET ANYTHING TURN ON THE 577 00:59:56.549 --> 01:00:07.334 ADVICE ADVICE SIS TUDZ. DANIEL'S LAW IS QUITE TAILORED IT'S AN OPT IN KINDS 578 01:00:07.334 --> 01:00:13.853 OF LIKE A DO NOT CALL REGISTRY. IT DOESN'T TAKE A SLEJ HAMMER ABOUT SAYING NO ADDRESSES 579 01:00:13.853 --> 01:00:19.975 DON'T TELL ANYONE ABOUT ADDRESSES IF IT DID IT WOULD BE VERY CLEAR AND WAY MORE RESTRICTIVE 580 01:00:19.975 --> 01:00:26.080 ON SPEECH. I DON'T THINK MY FRIENDS ON THE OTHER SIDE. I THINK WE MIGHT HAVE A HARDER TIME 581 01:00:26.080 --> 01:00:31.573 DEFENDING A STATUTE THAT TOOK SUCH A BROAD APPROACH. I THINK BY SAYING WE'RE GOING TO 582 01:00:31.573 --> 01:00:36.783 GIVE THE OPT OUT TO THE COVERED PERSON AND LET THEM GO TO SOMEONE WHO IS GOING TO BE 583 01:00:36.783 --> 01:00:42.630 DISTRIBUTING THEIR ADDRESSES AND SAY HEY PLEASE KNOCK IT OFF. I'M INVESTIGATING M S 13, 584 01:00:42.630 --> 01:00:49.399 MY FAMILY IS GETTING THREATS, PLEASE STOP. GIVE THEM TIME TO COMPLY AND IF THEY DOEBTS 585 01:00:49.399 --> 01:00:55.619 DO IT THEY ARE SUBJECT TO CIVIL DAMAGES I THINK THAT'S A TAILORED REGIME. IT 586 01:00:55.619 --> 01:01:00.361 MEANS THERE ARE GOING TO BE TIMES, I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THIS ONE WHERE THE OPRA CUSTODIAN 587 01:01:00.361 --> 01:01:09.046 IS CORRECT TO GIVE OUT THE ADDRESS AND THERE IS TIMES WHEN THE ADDRESS COMES WHITE PAGES.COM. 588 01:01:09.046 --> 01:01:15.623 MY MOM HAS A DOG, AFTER BOSSY SOMEONE COULD HAVE GOTTEN HER ADDRESS, MAYBE 589 01:01:15.623 --> 01:01:21.060 TOMORROW SHE IS GOING TO BECOME A POLICE OFFICER. IT'S NOT A SUPER HYPOTHETICAL BUT SHE'S 590 01:01:21.060 --> 01:01:26.305 PRETTY TOUGH AND THEN SHEET MIGHT WANTS TO INVOKE DANIEL'S LAW IF THEY PUT HER ON THE 591 01:01:26.305 --> 01:01:32.344 GAINS DETAIL BUT IF SOMEONE GOT IT LAWFULLY FROM THE RECORDS KWUS STOED YAN IN 2021 IT 592 01:01:32.344 --> 01:01:37.283 WAS TOTALLY LAWFUL AND IT CAN'T BE THAT THE ANSWER TURNS ON THE FACT THAT MY MOM WASN'T 593 01:01:37.283 --> 01:01:42.702 IN A LOCK DOWN DEFENSE AGAINST HER ADDRESS HER ENTIRE LIFE JUST BECAUSE SHE MIGHT BECOME 594 01:01:42.702 --> 01:01:46.288 A POLICE OFFICER ONE DAY. JUSTICE PATTERSON: WHAT IS YOUR RESPONSE TO 595 01:01:46.288 --> 01:01:54.706 MR. SHALOM'S ARGUMENT THAT IF HE HAD HAVE FEDS HAVE A MORE NARROWLY TAILORED AND 596 01:01:54.706 --> 01:01:59.214 CONSTITUTIONAL VERSION OF DANIEL'S LAW BECAUSE THERE IS AN EXCEPTION FOR JOURNALISTS AND 597 01:01:59.214 --> 01:02:02.321 YOU KNOW THE LANGUAGE. MICHAEL L. ZUCKERMAN: I THINK IT ASSUMES THE PREMISE 598 01:02:02.321 --> 01:02:10.072 OF THE QUESTION. I THINK IT COLLAPSES INTO THE DISPUTE. ABOUT WHETHER THIS IS A MATTER 599 01:02:10.072 --> 01:02:14.451 OF PUBLIC CONCERN OR NOT. I TAKE THAT PROVISION OF DANIEL'S LAW TO BASICALLY WRITE IN 600 01:02:14.451 --> 01:02:19.977 THE FLORIDA STAR PRINCIPLE THAT WE AGREE EXISTS, IF SOMETHING IS A MATTER OF PUBLIC CONCERN 601 01:02:19.977 --> 01:02:24.982 THEN THE SKRULT KNEE GETS VERY HARD BUT WE DON'T AGREE THAT YOU'RE EVEN PAST THAT POINT. 602 01:02:24.982 --> 01:02:31.016 WRITING IN A PROVISION LIKE THAT IS A NICE THING FOR LEGISLATURES TO DO. YOU'VE MADE 603 01:02:31.016 --> 01:02:35.927 THE AS APPLIED CHALLENGE AS A KINDS OF CAUSE OF ACTION WITHIN THE STATUTE BUT I THINK 604 01:02:35.927 --> 01:02:41.435 THE ANSWER TO THIS AS APPLIED CHALLENGE CAN'T TURN ON WHETHER OR NOT THE LEGISLATURE 605 01:02:41.435 --> 01:02:47.513 DECIDED -- HAD THE FORESIGHT TO SAY HEY LET'S MAKE SURE WE WRITE A SUBDIVISION THAT SAYS 606 01:02:47.513 --> 01:02:52.460 YOU CAN BRING AS APPLIED CHALLENGES FROM PUBLIC CONCERN IT JUST REDUCES TO WHAT IS HAPPENING 607 01:02:52.460 --> 01:02:58.313 HERE WHERE IN THE RARE INSTANCES WHERE SOMEONE HAS AN ARGUABLE CLAIM AGAIN WE THINK 608 01:02:58.313 --> 01:03:04.075 MISGUIDED BURT SINCERELY HELD YOU GET TO BRING IN AS APPLIED CHALLENGE. I THINK SURE A 609 01:03:04.075 --> 01:03:09.524 LEGISLATURE ALWAYS COULD ALWAYS WRITE IS THAT IN AND CONGRESS DID IN FEDERAL DANIEL'S LAW 610 01:03:09.524 --> 01:03:15.774 BUT I DON'T THINK ANYTHING IN THIS CASE WOULD TURN ON IT. THERE IS NO MATTER OF PUBLIC 611 01:03:15.774 --> 01:03:20.718 CONCERN BECAUSE ONE TWO THREE MAIN STREET AS OPPOSED TO THE NAME OF THE TOWN ISN'T A 612 01:03:20.718 --> 01:03:26.052 MATTER OF PUBLIC CONCERN ON THESE SPECIFIC ACTS. JUSTICE WAINER APTER: BECAUSE 613 01:03:26.052 --> 01:03:32.353 THE FEDERAL STATUTE IS PROHIBITING NOT ONLY THE STREET ADDRESS AN HOME PHONE NUMBER, UNLISTED 614 01:03:32.353 --> 01:03:39.513 PHONE NUMBER, SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER, BANK ACCOUNT NUMBER, FULL DATE OF BIRTH, OETS, SO 615 01:03:39.513 --> 01:03:44.778 SOME OF THOSE MIGHT I'M IMPLICATE A MATTER OF PUBLIC CONCERN IN A WAY THAT YOU'RE SAYING 616 01:03:44.778 --> 01:03:48.693 THE STREET ADDRESS GENERALLY WOULDN'T IN A CASE LIKE THIS. MICHAEL L. ZUCKERMAN: 617 01:03:48.693 --> 01:03:55.702 I GUESS TWO PONS ES TO THAT JUSTICE WAINER APTER. I HOPE I'M UNDERSTANDING YOUR QUESTION. 618 01:03:55.702 --> 01:03:58.455 JUSTICE WAINER APTER: THE EXCEPTION WOULD HAVE TO APPLY TO SOMETHING SO 619 01:03:58.455 --> 01:04:03.523 IF THE STATUTE ONLY PRESENTED THE STREET ADDRESS AND A STREETLIGHT ADDRESS IS GENERALLY 620 01:04:03.523 --> 01:04:07.875 NOT A MATTER OF PUBLIC CONCERN I THOUGHT IS WHAT YOU WERE ARGUING THEN THERE WOULD BE 621 01:04:07.875 --> 01:04:11.582 NO EXCEPTION THE STATUTE WOULDN'T BE THE EXCEPTION. MICHAEL L. ZUCKERMAN: 622 01:04:11.582 --> 01:04:16.089 SOME TIMES THE STREET ADDRESS CAN BE A MATTER OF CONCERN. THERE WILL BE CASES WHERE THE 623 01:04:16.089 --> 01:04:22.642 PARCEL ITSELF IS PART OF THE STORY. AGAIN. MR. CORRADO IN HIS BRIEF CITES, I COUNT 6 624 01:04:22.642 --> 01:04:28.451 NEWS ARTICLE, NONE OF THEM GIVE THE STREET NUMBER, A COUPLE GIVE A STREET NAME OR A 625 01:04:28.451 --> 01:04:33.423 BLOCK AND THOSE ARE ABOUT KINDS OF SHADY LANDS USE DEALS THEY ARE EXACTLY THE KINDS OF 626 01:04:33.423 --> 01:04:37.123 THINGS THAT WE WILL SAID WOULD BE A DIFFERENT ANALYSIS FROM A STORY THAT IS JUST ABOUT 627 01:04:37.123 --> 01:04:43.690 THE LENGTH OF YOUR COMMUTE FROM CAPE MAY TO NEW BRUNSWICK WHICH WHETHER IT IS THE EAST 628 01:04:43.690 --> 01:04:50.025 OR WEST END OF THE TOWN NO ONE IS MAKING DECISIONS DIFFERENTLY IN THEIR LIFE. 629 01:04:50.025 --> 01:04:53.495 JUDGE SABATINO: SINCE THERE IS A FEDERAL STATUTE AND WE KNOW THERE ARE A LOT OF OTHER 630 01:04:53.495 --> 01:05:00.532 STATES THAT HAVE ADOPTED SIMILAR DANIEL'S LAW KINDS OF STATUTES WE WERE REMINDED THAT 631 01:05:00.532 --> 01:05:08.096 THE COMPLAINT IN THIS CASE WAS FASHIONED EX SCLUSLY BASED ON ARTICLE 1 PARAGRAPH 6 OF 632 01:05:08.096 --> 01:05:14.217 THE NEW JERSEY STATE CONSTITUTION ARE THERE JURIST POTENTIAL OR OPERATIONAL REASONS FOR 633 01:05:14.217 --> 01:05:20.776 US TO AVOID EXTENDING ANY RIGHTS OF THE PLAINTIFFS OR OTHER SIMILAR PLAINTIFFS TO 634 01:05:20.776 --> 01:05:28.080 HAVE EXTRA PROTECTION OF A NEW JERSEY CONSTITUTION BECAUSE OF THE WAY THAT THIS STATUTORY 635 01:05:28.080 --> 01:05:35.549 SCHEME ON A NATIONWIDE BASIS HAS UNFOLDED OR IS POTENTIALLY SOMETHING UNIQUE ABOUT 636 01:05:35.549 --> 01:05:41.823 DISCLOSURES WITHIN NEW JERSEY THAT REQUIRE US TO LOOK MORE INTENSELY AT THE CLAIM THAT 637 01:05:41.823 --> 01:05:46.151 IS BEING MADE? MICHAEL L. ZUCKERMAN: JUDGE SABATINO I AM NOT AWARE OF 638 01:05:46.151 --> 01:05:53.838 ANY REASON THAT YOU WOULD GO ABOVE THE SORT OF GENERAL FEDERAL FLOOR HERE AS AMICUS I 639 01:05:53.838 --> 01:05:59.161 WOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO INJECT THE ANALYSIS AS DIFFERENT. I TAKE IT THE PARTIES HAVE ALWAYS 640 01:05:59.161 --> 01:06:02.783 AGREED. JUDGE SABATINO: IF THIS WAS PLED THAT WAY YOU THINK THE APPROPRIATE 641 01:06:02.783 --> 01:06:08.513 THING IS TO ANALYZE IT UNDERSTAND FEDERAL LAW AN SEE IF IT COMPORTS OR DOESN'T WITH THE 642 01:06:08.513 --> 01:06:11.979 FIRST AMENDMENT. MICHAEL L. ZUCKERMAN: I THINK THAT'S RIGHT, IF SOMEONE 643 01:06:11.979 --> 01:06:19.300 WANTS TO BRING A CLAIM AND. WE HAVEN'T STUDIED IT IN DEPTH BECAUSE NOBODY 644 01:06:19.300 --> 01:06:25.835 HAS MADE IT A CENTERPIECE NOT EVEN A CENTERPIECE BUT REALLY A PART OF THIS CASE AT ALL. 645 01:06:25.835 --> 01:06:29.256 JUSTICE PATTERSON: ANY QUESTIONS? MICHAEL L. ZUCKERMAN: THANK YOU 646 01:06:29.256 --> 01:06:33.977 YOUR HONORS. JUSTICE PATTERSON: THANK YOU. MR. SHALOM, REBUTTAL, 647 01:06:33.977 --> 01:06:37.189 PLEASE. ALEXANDER SHALOM: THANK YOU, VERY BRIEFLY I WOULD LIKE INFORM 648 01:06:37.189 --> 01:06:41.767 RESPONDS TO THREE QUESTIONS FROM THE COURT AND THEN ADD THREE POINTS MADE BY MY FRIENDS, 649 01:06:41.767 --> 01:06:50.236 JUSTICE WAINER APTER OPT, ON THE STER GRAND V KUCH IS FOUND AT 615 F THIRD 263, IT'S A 650 01:06:50.236 --> 01:06:55.969 FOURTH CIRCUIT CASE FROM 2010 AND IT'S CITED IN MY BRIEF. TO THE POINT THAT 651 01:06:55.969 --> 01:07:02.699 MR. ZUCKERMAN WAS JUST RESPONDING TO YOU ABOUT JUDGE SABATINO, WE PLED THIS CASE EXCLUSIVELY 652 01:07:02.699 --> 01:07:08.737 UNDERSTAND ARTICLE 1 PARAGRAPH 6 NOT UNDERSTAND THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION BUT WE STARTED 653 01:07:08.737 --> 01:07:14.591 FROM THE PREMISE THAT FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL LAW IS ALL THAT IS REQUIRED TO ADDRESS THIS 654 01:07:14.591 --> 01:07:20.516 CASE SO I AGREE WITH MR. ZUCKERMAN THAT WE DIDN'T ASK THE COURT TO DIE VEFRJ IN ANY MEANINGFUL 655 01:07:20.516 --> 01:07:24.605 WAY -- IN ANY WAY IN THIS CASE. JUDGE SABATINO: AND YOU HAVEN'T IDENTIFIED 656 01:07:24.605 --> 01:07:28.214 ANY SPECIAL REASONS TO DO THAT. ALEXANDER SHALOM: BECAUSE WE THINK FEDERAL 657 01:07:28.214 --> 01:07:34.660 LAW IS SO CLEARLY IN OUR FAVOR RIGHT. JUSTICE PATTERSON PENTAGON PAPER CASE 658 01:07:34.660 --> 01:07:41.066 TALKS AGAINST CONSTITUTIONALITY BUT I WILL GIVE YOU A NEW JERSEY CASE, NEW JERSEY STATE 659 01:07:41.066 --> 01:07:47.894 CHAMBER OF COMMERCE VERSUS NEW JERSEY ELECTION LAW ENFORCEMENT COMMISSION, 82, NEW JERSEY 660 01:07:47.894 --> 01:07:55.009 57 IT'S A 1980 CASE AND ON PAGE 70 THE FOLLOWING WHERE A STATUTE IS CHALLENGED ON FIRST 661 01:07:55.009 --> 01:08:07.632 AMENDMENT GROUNDS THE TRADITIONAL PRESUMPTION IN FAIR ON VALIDITY. TZ I, 662 01:08:07.632 --> 01:08:13.232 ALSO, DON'T THINK THIS CASE IS ABOUT FORCE FIELD IN ANY WAY. I DON'T THINK JUST BECAUSE 663 01:08:13.232 --> 01:08:19.357 YOU ARE WRITING AN ARTICLE ON A MATTER OF PUBLIC DERN YOU CAN THROW IN NONSECRETARY KWET 664 01:08:19.357 --> 01:08:26.158 TORS THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH YOUR ARTICLE AND THEN OBTAIN THE PROTECTION THAT THE 665 01:08:26.158 --> 01:08:31.825 DAILY MAIL LINE APPLIES. I ALSO AGREE THERE IS RADICAL AGREEMENT ON LOTS OF 666 01:08:31.825 --> 01:08:37.958 THINGS AS MR. ZUCKERMAN SAID. THE PROBLEM IS THAT FUNDAMENTALLY MY FRIENDS 667 01:08:37.958 --> 01:08:45.220 SAY THAT THE ADDRESS WHERE HE LIVES IS NOT RELATED TO THE DISTANCE BETWEEN HIS HOME AND 668 01:08:45.220 --> 01:08:52.232 HIS WORK AND THAT JUST FALSE APART ON ANY INSPECTION. IT'S A NECESSARY ELEMENT OF IT. 669 01:08:52.232 --> 01:08:58.782 WHERE HE LIVES IS PART -- THIS IS A DISTANCE FROM POINT A TO POINT B, WHERE 670 01:08:58.782 --> 01:09:04.236 POINT A IS RELATED TO. SO, AGAIN, IF YOU USE THE TRIAL COURT AND THE APPELLATE DIVISION 671 01:09:04.236 --> 01:09:11.021 AND MY FRIENDS SUGGESTION IS IT NECESSARY, IS IT SUPERFLUOUS, THEN WE MIGHT NOT WIN, YOU 672 01:09:11.021 --> 01:09:15.412 COULD ARGUE AND I DON'T THINK IT'S RIGHT BUT YOU COULD ARGUE THAT IT'S NOT NECESSARY BUT 673 01:09:15.412 --> 01:09:20.856 YOU CAN'T SAY THAT IT IS NOT RELATED TO THE MATTER OF PUBLIC CONCERN AND THE ONLY 674 01:09:20.856 --> 01:09:24.857 QUESTION IS -- JUSTICE PATTERSON: WHAT IS YOUR DEFINITION OF A NONE SECRETARY 675 01:09:24.857 --> 01:09:38.558 WIT TORE? YOU COULD COME UP WITH LITERALLY THOUSANDS OF RIDICULOUS ADDITIONS 676 01:09:38.558 --> 01:09:45.677 TO SOMETHING TO AN ARTICLE ON A PARTICULAR TOPIC, EXTRANEOUS FACTS. YOU ALSO HAVE THIS 677 01:09:45.677 --> 01:09:52.824 ONE WHICH IF THIS GENTLEMAN AND I AM NOT SAYING HE DID OR HE DIDN'T, BUT IF HE WAS NOT 678 01:09:52.824 --> 01:10:00.305 SHOWING UP FOR WORK, IT'S PROBABLY NOT CRITICAL WHETHER HE LIVED 162.7 MILES OR 1623.8 679 01:10:00.305 --> 01:10:09.818 MILES AWAY AND THAT BEING THE REASON. DO YOU SEE WHAT I'M SAYING? 680 01:10:09.818 --> 01:10:14.843 WHERE IS THE LINE DRAWN. ALEXANDER SHALOM: THE FACTUAL RESPONSE IS THERE IS 681 01:10:14.843 --> 01:10:21.236 A LOT OF TALK IN THE PAPERS BELOW ABOUT THAT THE PURPOSE OF MR. KRATOVIL'S ARTICLE WAS 682 01:10:21.236 --> 01:10:26.315 TO TALK ABOUT THIS NO-SHOW JOB. GO BACK TO THE COMPLAINT? THAT'S 683 01:10:26.315 --> 01:10:31.911 NOT WHAT IT SAYS IN THE COMPLAINT. THE COMPLAINT TALKS ABOUT DISTANCE AND IT TALKS ABOUT 684 01:10:31.911 --> 01:10:37.806 THE FINANCES OF DIRECTOR CAPUTO'S MULTIPLE PROPERTIES IN CAPE MAY. IT TALKS ABOUT THE 685 01:10:37.806 --> 01:10:43.268 DEPUTY DIRECTOR'S PROPERTY. JUSTICE PATTERSON: IN THE SAME BUILDING, ETC., 686 01:10:43.268 --> 01:10:47.142 AND ALL OF THAT. ALEXANDER SHALOM: MY POINT IS THERE HAS BEEN AN INFERENCE 687 01:10:47.142 --> 01:10:52.468 ABOUT WHAT HE WANTS TO TALK ABOUT THAT IS NOT ACTUALLY FOUND IN THE COMPLAINT. THE CASE 688 01:10:52.468 --> 01:10:57.182 WAS DISMISSED AT THE COMPLAINT STAGE. LET ME ANSWER VERY DIRECTLY WHY I THINK 689 01:10:57.182 --> 01:11:01.766 WE HAVE TO WIN HERE JUSTICE PATTERSON AND WHY IT IS NOT THE NONE SECRETARY WIT TORE WE'RE 690 01:11:01.766 --> 01:11:06.352 TALKING ABOUT. AS LONG AS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE CONTESTED FACT AND THE AGREED 691 01:11:06.352 --> 01:11:14.487 UPON ISSUE OF PUBLIC CONCERN IS AS CLOSE AS IT WAS IN THE FLORIDA STAR, WE WIN. 692 01:11:14.487 --> 01:11:20.263 IF IT'S FURTHER AFIELD FROM THAT, IT DOESN'T MEAN WE NECESSARILY LOSE, JUSTICE WAINER APTER 693 01:11:20.263 --> 01:11:27.654 GAVE US A MECHANISM WHERE WE MIGHT NOT. BUT IF IT IS WITHIN THAT SPHERE AT LEAST AS CLOSE 694 01:11:27.654 --> 01:11:33.493 AS BETWEEN THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CRIME IN GENERAL AND A SPECIFIC VIKTD'S NAME THEN 695 01:11:33.493 --> 01:11:44.955 IT IS AT LEAST AS RELATED TO AS IN THAT CASE. OKAY. I VERY, VERY 696 01:11:44.955 --> 01:11:50.747 BRIEFLY WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE IDEA THAT THE PRIVILEGE FOR EDITORS ONLY APPLIES TO MAJOR 697 01:11:50.747 --> 01:11:59.305 CON GLOM MER RATS AND NOT TO MAJOR SHOPS. I WILL DIRECT YOU TO JUSTICE POUL'S CONCURRENCE 698 01:11:59.305 --> 01:12:06.235 IN NEBRASKA PRESS ASSOCIATION WHERE HE TALKS ABOUT I ANY IT WAS THE AN IN HIS STON STAR 699 01:12:06.235 --> 01:12:12.637 WHERE SMALLER NEWSPAPERS ARE SCARED OUT OF THIS. IT IS ALSO A FUNNY TIME TO SAY WE CAN 700 01:12:12.637 --> 01:12:17.792 ONLY GIVE RIGHTS TO GIANT NEWSPAPERS AS WE KNOW THAT GIANT NEWSPAPERS NO LONGER EXIST 701 01:12:17.792 --> 01:12:26.019 SO MR. KRATOVIL, NEW BRUNSWICK TODAY HAS BEEN PUBLISHED FOR 14 YEARS. IT DOES NOT HAVE 702 01:12:26.019 --> 01:12:32.490 A PRECONDITION MUCH LIKE THE NEWARK STAR LEDGER. THE LOWER COURT FOUND THAT MR. KRATOVIL 703 01:12:32.490 --> 01:12:38.247 IS A JOURNALIST MY FRIENDS HAVE NOT CONTESTED THAT, MR. KRATOVIL IS A JOURNALIST AND THAT 704 01:12:38.247 --> 01:12:44.366 GETS TO MY LAST POINT WHICH IS, WE HAD THIS TALK ABOUT HOW MUCH CAN ME SAY AND HOW MANY 705 01:12:44.366 --> 01:12:51.749 FACTS CAN HE INCLUDE AND WHAT LEVEL OF DETAIL CAN HE GO IN TO BOLSTER HIS VERACITY AN 706 01:12:51.749 --> 01:12:57.507 I HAVE WRITTEN DOWN THE TWO REQUESTS YOU SAID FROM THE PRESS RELEASE WHAT HE SAID COULD 707 01:12:57.507 --> 01:13:03.679 NOT BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH. WE LIVE IN DARK TIMES. THE VERACITY OF THE PRESS IS 708 01:13:03.679 --> 01:13:08.903 QUESTIONED BY LOTS OF PEOPLE WITH LOTS OF POWER AND THE PRESS CAN NO LONGER JUST ASSUME 709 01:13:08.903 --> 01:13:15.342 THE PUBLIC TRUSTS THEM WITHOUT THE INCLUSION OF DETAILS IN THE FIRST INSTANCE AND IT IS 710 01:13:15.342 --> 01:13:23.843 KNOWS R THOSE VERY DETAILS THAT WOULD PUT MR. KRATOVIL IN JEOPARDY WE ASK THAT THE COURT 711 01:13:23.843 --> 01:13:27.180 REVERSE. JUSTICE PIERRE-LOUIS: I DO HAVE ONE LAST QUESTION, SOMETHING I 712 01:13:27.180 --> 01:13:33.799 DISCUSSED WITH MR. ZUCKERMAN. YOU RELY HEAVILY ON FLORIDA STAR AND FLORIDA STAR ITS 713 01:13:33.799 --> 01:13:38.741 RELATIONSHIP IS AS CLOSE AS IT WAS IN FLORIDA THAT STAR WRRD TO THE NAME OF THE VICTIM 714 01:13:38.741 --> 01:13:44.926 AND PUBLIC CONCERN THEN YOU WIN, BUT, AS I WAS DISCUSSING WHEN MR. ZUCKERMAN WAS ARGUING, 715 01:13:44.926 --> 01:13:53.063 THE COURT ITSELF IN FLORIDA STAR FURTHER NOTED THAT EVEN AFTER DETERMINING THAT THERE WAS 716 01:13:53.063 --> 01:13:58.421 A PUBLIC CONCERN NOTED THAT THERE MIGHT BE A CASE, NOTWITHSTANDING THE RELATIONSHIP TO 717 01:13:58.421 --> 01:14:05.172 THE PUBLIC CONCERN WHERE THE NAME OF A VICTIM COULD BE SO OVERWHELMINGLY, YOU KNOW, 718 01:14:05.172 --> 01:14:10.311 PROTECTING THAT NAME COULD BE SO EVERWHEL MENTIONLY NECESSARY THAT CIVIL SANCTIONS 719 01:14:10.311 --> 01:14:14.481 COULD BE IMPOSED AND IT WOULD MEET THE DAILY MAIL STANDARD. ALEXANDER SHALOM: 720 01:14:14.481 --> 01:14:22.418 FIRSZ LET ME START BY SAYING -- THE FLORIDA STAR MAKES ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT IT IS DECIDING 721 01:14:22.418 --> 01:14:27.343 THE CASE ON ITS OWN FACTS AND THAT IS BECAUSE THE NEWSPAPER'S ATTORNEYS WANTED A RULE 722 01:14:27.343 --> 01:14:33.435 THAT SAID WHENEVER YOU WANT TO PUBLISH TRUE INFORMATION YOU CAN'T BE PUNISHED AND THE 723 01:14:33.435 --> 01:14:40.092 COURT SAID NO, NO, WE'RE NOT GOING THAT FAR SO THE FIRST THRESHOLD IS DOES IT RELATE 724 01:14:40.092 --> 01:14:45.436 TO A MATTER OF PUBLIC CONCERN AND THAT'S THE NUB OF THIS CASE, DOES IT RELATE TO A MATTER 725 01:14:45.436 --> 01:14:50.800 OF PUBLIC CONCERN AND I THINK WHEN YOU ACTUALLY LOOK AT WHAT THAT MEANS, CONCERN, RELATE, 726 01:14:50.800 --> 01:14:56.597 IT HAS TO. BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT CAN NEVER BE -- JUSTICE 727 01:14:56.597 --> 01:14:59.663 PATTERSON: I MISSED WHAT YOU JUST SAID. ALEXANDER SHALOM: THAT WE'RE NOT 728 01:14:59.663 --> 01:15:04.691 TALKING ABOUT A NECESSITY TEST BUT A RELATIONAL TEST. AGAIN, THERE IS RADICAL AGREEMENT 729 01:15:04.691 --> 01:15:11.096 AS TO THAT POINT. IT IS A RELATIONAL TEST. IT CAN'T BE TOTALLY FOREIGN TO IT. I THINK 730 01:15:11.096 --> 01:15:18.413 MY ARGUMENT IS THE NEXUS MUST BE AT LEAST AS CLOSE OR ARGUABLY MUST BE AS CLOSE AS IT IS 731 01:15:18.413 --> 01:15:22.875 IN THE FLORIDA THAT STAR. THE SAME FACTORS THAT WEIGH HEAVILY ONCE YOU'VE 732 01:15:22.875 --> 01:15:28.151 MADE THAT THRESHOLD DETERMINATION I THINK ALSO SUPPORT US HERE IN THE NARROW TAILORING 733 01:15:28.151 --> 01:15:33.233 AND FRANKLY I HEARD MR. ZUCKERMAN ESSENTIALLY CONCEDE THAT POINT WHEN HE WAS ASKED ABOUT 734 01:15:33.233 --> 01:15:37.810 THE EXCEPTION IN THE FEDERAL LAW HE SAID THE EXCEPTION IN THE FEDERAL LAW IS ALL ABOUT 735 01:15:37.810 --> 01:15:42.380 WHETHER IT IS A MATTER OF PUBLIC CONCERN. HE IS RIGHT. IF IT'S NOT A MATTER OF PUBLIC 736 01:15:42.380 --> 01:15:47.069 CONCERN, WE LOSE BUT ONCE IT IS RELATED TO A MATTER OF PUBLIC CONCERN IT SEEMS INCHES 737 01:15:47.069 --> 01:15:51.932 SKAP ABDOMINAL THAT FOR THOSE TWO REASONS ONE BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT ITSELF HANDED IT 738 01:15:51.932 --> 01:15:57.241 OUT AND WE ASSUME AND THE FLORIDA MRA STAR IS EXTREMELY CLEAR ABOUT HOW WE DO THIS 739 01:15:57.241 --> 01:16:01.182 ANALYSIS, WHEN THEY GIVE UTILIZE THAT INFORMATION WE HAVE TO ASSUME THEY HAD A BETTER, 740 01:16:01.182 --> 01:16:07.075 MORE NARROWLY TAILORED WAY TO PREVENT IT'S DISSEMINATION RATHER THAN BY CRIMINALIZING 741 01:16:07.075 --> 01:16:18.233 IT AND PROVIDING BETTER SANCTIONS. JUSTICE PATTERSON: THANK YOU MR. SHALOM, 742 01:16:18.233 --> 01:16:25.602 THANKS TO ALL COUNSEL, THIS HAS BEEN A SUBBESH ARGUMENT ON ALL SIDES, MUCH APPRECIATED 743 01:16:25.602 --> 01:16:28.602 THE COURT IS IN RECESS FOR THE DAY,