Home

Shield Laws Don't Apply to Blogs -- Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge James Kleinberg

Submitted by kebernet on Fri, 03/04/2005 - 09:48
Tagged:

In a case with implications for the freedom to blog, a San Jose judge tentatively ruled Thursday that Apple Computer can force three online publishers to surrender the names of confidential sources who disclosed information about the company's upcoming products.

Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge James Kleinberg refused to extend to the Web sites a protection that shields journalists from revealing the names of unidentified sources or turning over unpublished material.

Kleinberg offered no explanation for the preliminary ruling. He will hear arguments today from Apple's attorneys and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a San Francisco digital rights group representing two of the three Web sites Apple subpoenaed -- Apple Insider and PowerPage.

The case raises issues about whether those who write for online publications are entitled to the same constitutional protections as their counterparts in more traditional print and broadcast news organizations.

Apple sought subpoenas in December against two online news sites that focus exclusively on its products: PowerPage (www.power page.org) and Apple Insider (www.appleinsider.com). The company filed a separate suit against Think Secret (www.thinksecret.com) on Jan. 4.

Apple's argument

Apple maintains that disclosures about an unreleased product, code-named ``Asteroid,'' [cooper: Read, Mac Mini] constituted a trade secret violation. The company asked the court to force the Web sites to identify the source of the leaks.

In its court filings, Apple argued that neither the free speech protections of the United States Constitution nor the California Shield Law, which protects journalists from revealing their sources, applies to the Web sites. The company said such protections apply only to ``legitimate members of the press.''

Silicon Valley.com

You know, if Jeff Gannon and Talon News are "Legitimate Members of the Press", how in the HELL can Think Secret not be?

Comments

RE: Shield Laws Don't Apply to Blogs -- Santa Clara County Supe

Submitted by cooper (not verified) on Fri, 03/04/2005 - 19:55.

Charles Cooper (no releation) has this to say on his CNet blog:

Apple’s an infuriating company for me. I love its technology but I hate its politics. To wit, the legal offensive to force three online news sites to divulge the identities of sources that leaked information about upcoming Apple products.

The company’s argument is that bloggers or the sundry hole-in-the-wall online gossip sites do not deserve the same free speech protections as “legitimate members of the press.� In a preliminary ruling issued Thursday, the presiding judge went Apple’s way. I wouldn’t pay too much attention to the more apocalyptic predictions – at least not just yet. The outcome of this case has implications far beyond this minor tiff. Before it's resolved, the case may need to go all the way to the Supreme Court.

But why Apple insists on acting like a collection of petulant yuppies is another matter. Other tech companies deal with leaks all the time. Nobody’s happy when their discussions wind up as fodder for the rumor mill. But why turn this into a federal case –literally? So much for thinking differently.

Posted by Charles Cooper

Link

I am truely, honestly stunned that this has not gotten any play at all outside the nerd circles. The essense of this ruling is HUGELY important. Chuck is correct that this is only the beginning, but the fact that some judge could issue such a.. unfucking believable ruling is really staggering and doesn't bode well for the future of this case and the larger issues at play.

RE: Shield Laws Don't Apply to Blogs -- Santa Clara County Supe

Submitted by atrox (not verified) on Mon, 03/07/2005 - 16:40.

I agree with you about how crazy this ruling is and with CCooper about Apples politics being batty sometimes.

To rule out the US Constitution (and the CA Shield law) and say that the reasoning is that its (they are) intended for "legitimate members of the press" is problematic enough BY ITSELF.

Then to distinguish "Talon News" from any blog or information website is insane.

I hate to take everything on a Bush administration related tangent but what about paid political pundits that masquerade as journalists for Bush (or any political for that matter). If we start drawing the line then hell they are EVEN LESS "legitimate", they are anti-legitimate, what do we do then? (but the main point being the line should not exist in the first place).

RE: Shield Laws Don't Apply to Blogs -- Santa Clara County Supe

Submitted by anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 03/07/2005 - 19:21.

As in "softball lobbing male prostitute with a fake name"?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.