Too Much Media, LLC v. Hale
206 N.J. 209
| N.J. | 2011Background
- Defendant Hale, a self-described journalist, posted comments about plaintiffs Too Much Media (TMM) and its owners on Oprano.com, an online discussion board.
- Plaintiffs sued Hale for defamation and false light arising from these posts; trade libel claim was later withdrawn.
- Hale invoked New Jersey Shield Law protections, challenging discovery in a defamation suit.
- Trial court held Hale failed to show nexus to news media; Appellate Division affirmed, rehearing the privilege issue.
- New Jersey Supreme Court granted limited review to interpret the Shield Law's reach and standard for eligibility.
- Court held that online message boards are not “news media” similar to traditional outlets under the Shield Law; the privilege is not absolute for poster-board comments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Shield Law cover Hale's Oprano posts? | Hale is a journalist; posts qualify as news gathering. | Oprano posts are not news media; no nexus to shield. | No; shield does not extend to online message-board posts. |
| Is online message boards like Oprano 'news media' under the statute’s 'similar' requirement? | The statute's breadth covers modern information platforms similar to traditional media. | Message boards are not similar to newspapers/mags; not covered. | Not similar; shield not triggered. |
| Can a self-proclaimed journalist establish Shield Law protection merely by claiming status? | Certification of journalism should suffice. | Status alone insufficient without nexus to 'news media'. | Certification alone insufficient; nexus and context matter. |
| Should the civil defamation context require intrusively evidentiary hearings to assess privilege? | Traditional, straightforward proof should apply; minimization of hearings. | Appellate factors require careful, structured inquiry. | Three-part nexus/purpose/professional activity test governs; hearings tailored to issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- Maressa v. N.J. Monthly, 89 N.J. 176 (1982) (shield law is broad and absolute for newspersons in defamation actions)
- Venezia, 191 N.J. 259 (2007) (shield protects confidential and non-confidential sources; broad scope)
- Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972) (First Amendment privilege discussed; state standards may vary)
- In re Schuman, 114 N.J. 14 (1989) (statutory history and nexus to news media examined)
- Trump v. O'Brien, 403 N.J. Super. 281 (App.Div. 2008) (appellate view on what constitutes news media beyond traditional outlets)
- Avila, 206 N.J. Super. 61 (App.Div. 1985) (similarity to traditional media can bring non-traditional publishers under shield)