In a crucial legal battle, New Jersey’s attorney general is pushing back against a wave of corporate challenges to a recent law aimed at protecting the privacy of judges and prosecutors. This law, which restricts the disclosure of personal information such as home addresses, has sparked a heated debate over constitutional rights and public safety.
At the heart of the dispute is Daniel’s Law, enacted in 2020 following the tragic death of the 20-year-old son of U.S. District Judge Esther Salas, who was killed at her home by an aggrieved lawyer. The legislation, named in his memory, seeks to prevent similar incidents by allowing judges, law enforcement, prosecutors, and other officials to keep their home addresses and unpublished phone numbers confidential.
Attorney General Matthew Platkin’s office has staunchly defended the law, asserting that it is vital for safeguarding public officials and does not infringe upon free speech rights under the First Amendment. In a recent brief to U.S. District Judge Harvey Bartle, state lawyers emphasized the importance of maintaining privacy and safety at home, calling the law a well-calibrated measure to achieve this goal.
However, more than 100 businesses, including real estate firms, marketing companies, data brokers, and credit reporting agencies, have challenged the law. These companies argue that the restrictions are overly broad and unnecessarily limit free speech. Among the high-profile defendants are CoStar Group, Oracle Corp, Zillow, and Thomson Reuters.
Thomson Reuters has acknowledged the noble intent behind Daniel’s Law but criticized it as being excessively broad and in conflict with First Amendment protections. The companies are seeking to have the lawsuits dismissed, claiming that the law restricts far more speech than is necessary to ensure the safety of public officials.
In contrast, Platkin’s office contends that the law is a legitimate response to the increasing threats faced by judges and other officials, empowering them to protect their privacy without infringing on constitutional rights. Lawyers for Atlas Data Privacy, a company representing over 19,000 individuals covered by Daniel’s Law, argued that the regulated data does not constitute protected speech under the First Amendment and that the law is a valid, content-neutral restriction.
This legal clash, taking place in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, could set a significant precedent regarding the balance between privacy and free speech in the digital age. As both sides prepare for a rigorous courtroom battle, the outcome will be closely watched by legal experts and privacy advocates alike.
