http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/states/california/the_valley/14682069.htm
The 6th District, in a unanimous three-justice ruling, rejected Apple’s argument that bloggers are not covered by California and federal laws protecting the confidentiality of journalists’ sources and should not be afforded the same protections as traditional news organizations.
We decline the implicit invitation to embroil ourselves in questions of what constitutes `legitimate journalism,' '' Justice Conrad Rushing wrote for the court. The shield law is intended to protect the gathering and dissemination of news, and that is what petitioners did here. We can think of no workable test or principle that would distinguish legitimate' from illegitimate’ news.’’
``Any attempt by the courts to draw such a distinction would imperil a fundamental purpose of the First Amendment,’’ the justices added.
Civil liberties groups and other online media advocates lauded the court decision, saying it marked a legal breakthrough for the eclectic blend of new media operators devoted solely to the Web. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, which represented O’Grady in the case, called the ruling a ``huge win’’ for online journalists.
Various legal blogs also supported the decision. Eugene Volokh, a University of California-Los Angeles law professor who runs a popular law blog, said the court ``got this absolutely right.’’
``This means that if a journalist receives information from a source, it doesn’t matter if they publish that on a Web site or in a newspaper or they are talking about it on the radio,’’ added Lauren Gelman, assistant director of Stanford Law School’s Center for Internet and Society.
Apple was backed in the case by a coalition of high-tech companies that warned there is no journalistic privilege when it comes to concealing corporate theft. And Apple, which investigated several dozen employees for the leak, has contended that the case is about theft, not the First Amendment.
Superior Court Judge James Kleinberg, who ruled in Apple’s favor last year, agreed with that position, concluding that Apple had a right to find out who stole and leaked the information on Asteroid, a device designed to work with Apple’s GarageBand music software.
The appeals court, however, found that Apple failed to thoroughly pursue other options before going after the bloggers’ sources. The 6th District also ruled that a 20-year-old federal law designed to protect the privacy of electronic communications prohibits Apple from going through Internet service providers to obtain the bloggers’ sources.
The appeals court also refused to accept Apple’s argument that information related to the Asteroid product was not newsworthy and should not fall under the scope of laws protecting a journalist’s confidential sources.
Hoorah for the internet! Down with THE MAN trying to impose it’s will wantonly on the general public, just because they have the money and wherewithal to do it.
Side note. I wonder if this has ramifications here at The Dope. Say if someone posted the sun will rise in the west tomorrow…
This is a rare technology-related news item that makes me smile.
And for that, GIGOBuster , I thank you.
Cite?
It does for Venus.
Hey, nobody said we were talking about Earth.
