# Steve Jobs vs. Journalism & Free Speech **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 26, 2005, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/steve-jobs-vs-journalism-free-speech/301260 "2005-04-26T22:22:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/steve-jobs-vs-journalism-free-speech/301260/21 "2005-04-27T04:20:12Z")
If anything good comes out of this, then hopefully all of those idiots that bought the upscale specialty item sold by Macintosh instead of the more moderately priced PC, will come to realize that Mac is not some bastion of hope for the oppressed. This may not be a first amendment issue but Apple is being really stupid. The First Amendment was meant to level the playing field and now Apple wants to redefine journalist to keep the ‘hoi polloi’ from using it in order to further a short term agenda. The definition of ‘blogger’ is too loosely defined to be a legally useful definition for what someone does. Everyone should have their right to privacy respected, it shouldn’t be limited to some meritocratic elite. Erek ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/steve-jobs-vs-journalism-free-speech/301260/22 "2005-04-27T04:26:10Z")
> [@JohnT](#): > > **Apple purchases the books from the publisher to sell, at a profit, to its own customers**. It’s how retail works - manufacturers just don’t _give_ you the stuff to sell! :rolleyes: OK, you’re right on this point, and I misunderstood what you were saying. Of course I understand how retail works. > [@JohnT](#): > > You’re arguing that people and companies must be compelled to purchase that which they disagree with. No I am not. There’s no “must” about that aspect of my objections, which I made clear in the OP. Because there are a host of legitimate issues any company may have to confront in B-to-B arrangements such as this, I would state catagorically that it would be _wrong_ to “compell”. That doesn’t mean I think companies and executives should go around abusing their rights in an effort to stifle mere expression, which is exactly what is going on here. Legal? Sure, and that’s the only way things can be for very practical reasons. But ethical in this case? I really don’t think so. ---
**Author:** ![milroyj](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a88e57/32.png) [@milroyj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/milroyj)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 4:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/steve-jobs-vs-journalism-free-speech/301260/23 "2005-04-27T04:51:12Z")
**Loopydude** , your name says it all. There is no First Amendment issue present in this thread, not even in the dustiest corners of it. Steve Jobs can sell whatever books he likes, OR NOT. The FA and/or Freedom of Speech do NOT apply to this case. :rolleyes: X infinity ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 4:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/steve-jobs-vs-journalism-free-speech/301260/24 "2005-04-27T04:56:17Z")
And it’s still wrong to force people (and companies) to purchase stuff from companies that they disagree with, especially _because_ they disagree with them. I know you’ll state that’s not what you’re arguing for, but since the world works the way it does, it _is_. ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 5:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/steve-jobs-vs-journalism-free-speech/301260/25 "2005-04-27T05:07:54Z")
> [@milroyj](#): > > **Loopydude** , your name says it all. There is no First Amendment issue present in this thread, not even in the dustiest corners of it. Steve Jobs can sell whatever books he likes, OR NOT. The FA and/or Freedom of Speech do NOT apply to this case. :rolleyes: X infinity Jesus fucking Christ, do any of you actually read what I’m saying? Have you clicked on even one of the cites? How can you say there’s no FA issue _with the bloggers_, which is what I fucking was talking about when I brought up the First Amendment! Is the director of the [New Media Program](http://ecoustics-cnet.com.com/Apple+suit+tests+First+Amendment/2100-1047_3-5519311.html) at the U of CA, Berkeley as fucking incapable of reading comprehension as you are? And if you think financial retribution against a company that publishes one book, such that you sell none of their books, and cause some amount of financial harm to _all_ the other authors who do business with that company, merely because something they said pissed someone off, isn’t a free speech issue, then fine. I am not at all the only person who feels just the opposite, so unless there’s some gigantic conspiracy of dipshits operating somewhere other than in this thread, I’m not sure you’ve grounds for the infinite rolleyes just yet. ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 5:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/steve-jobs-vs-journalism-free-speech/301260/26 "2005-04-27T05:15:42Z")
AGAIN: > [@](#): > > I mean, come on: Banning the “For Dummies” books out of spite? As Apple is hardly the worlds biggest seller of computer-related literature (even of the Mac-centric variety), such a gesture might hurt Apple more than W&S, and at the very least confirms Jobs is a big of a fucker as the unauthorized biography asserts. > > What truly sucks about this, in my mind, is it’s nothing less than an attack on free speech. Execs get hatcheted all the time, and the more prominant they are, the more likely they’ll be the subject of an unflattering portrait, deserved or not. That’s what living in a free society is all about, and while it’s an executive’s prerogative to choose whomever he wishes to do business with, when the decision is being made in an effort to punish an entire company for saying something he personally doesn’t like, I feel the executive has overstepped the bounds of his reasonable discretion, and entered into the realm of censorship. If the book is slanderous, take them to court. Otherwise, suck it up and deal with people voicing their oppinion like an American fucking-well should. You were the one who brought up First Amendment issues in regards to the Dummy books, not us. And the fact that others in this thread share your opinion does not a valid argument make. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 5:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/steve-jobs-vs-journalism-free-speech/301260/27 "2005-04-27T05:44:41Z")
This is not a First Amendment Issue, but it is a Free Speech issue. Steve Jobs is stifling someone’s ability to communicate, even though he helped create the venue for communication with which he is using to stifle it. Steve Jobs has no right to see bloggers logs, and has no obligation to stock the guy’s books. And JohnT: I can’t wait til the world suddenly doesn’t work the way you think it does, because even though you’re a funny dude (based upon your qualifying everything thread) it’ll be great to see the look on everyone’s faces when their assumptions they thought were self-evident suddenly come to be called into question. I dunno what the fuck this has to do with ethics. Business ethics is a goddamn oxymoron when you’re at Jobs’ level. Erek ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 5:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/steve-jobs-vs-journalism-free-speech/301260/28 "2005-04-27T05:50:09Z")
> [@Loopydude](#): > > Jesus fucking Christ, do any of you actually read what I’m saying? Have you clicked on even one of the cites? How can you say there’s no FA issue _with the bloggers_, which is what I fucking was talking about when I brought up the First Amendment! Ahem…perhaps you should go back and read the first four paragraphs of your OP. It most certainly doesn’t appear you were talking about the bloggers when you make your “attack on free speech” claim. And apart from that, what kind of sense would it make for Jobs to allow books to be sold in his stores when they’re published by a publisher who’s trying to make him look bad? I don’t think Jobs is trying to “punish” Wiley & Son’s; I don’t think he even thinks of it in those terms. To me, it’s simply a common-sense business decision. I don’t see any way that Jobs could continue to sell products by a firm that was working to defame him without it making him appear on the one hand to have no balls, or to be a money-grubber on the other by continuing to sell products made by a company that was out to defame him. In short, I think Jobs’ decision was the only sensible way for him to react. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 6:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/steve-jobs-vs-journalism-free-speech/301260/29 "2005-04-27T06:46:39Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Steve Jobs has no right to see bloggers logs Considering that the bloggers were (re)posting corporate trade secrets, in clear violation of Californialaw, I think he does. As for the biography, my half-assed guess is that Jobs doesn’t like it just because he really values his privacy. AFAIK he’s never liked _any_ book that gets into his personal life, not even the thinly-disguised biography his sister wrote. ---
**Author:** ![Typo\_Negative](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/typo_negative/32/484_2.png) [@Typo\_Negative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Negative)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 6:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/steve-jobs-vs-journalism-free-speech/301260/30 "2005-04-27T06:51:38Z")
> [@Starving Artist](#): > > I don’t see any way that Jobs could continue to sell products by a firm that was working to defame him without it making him appear on the one hand to have no balls, or to be a money-grubber on the other by continuing to sell products made by a company that was out to defame him. I can see him not wanting to carry the biography. But to not carry the other books, which are pretty durn successful, seems silly and childish. But, hey, it’s his company. ---
**Author:** ![SolGrundy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bbce88/32.png) [@SolGrundy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SolGrundy)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 7:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/steve-jobs-vs-journalism-free-speech/301260/31 "2005-04-27T07:40:18Z")
Okay, first, I don’t take kindly to being called a “twit” by someone who non-ironically uses the term “blogosphere.” Second, I don’t take kindly to being accused of “arguing out of my ass” by someone who keeps changing his fucking argument as it suits him. Apparently, you get to decide what’s relevant and what’s not, and don’t like the idea of anyone disagreeing with you. “Evil Steve Jobs is refusing to sell books from an entire retailer out of spite! That’s a violation of free speech! Wait, what? That’s not a violation of free speech? Well – you’re dumb! And what about this book that’s unfavorable to him? I bet he’s not going to sell that in the store, either! That’s clearly a violation of free speech! No? Then what are you, some kind of dipshit? What I was really talking about how he’s saying the bloggers aren’t real journalists, and is trying to shut them down! What? He’s not trying to shut them down? Uh, can’t you read, you idiot? I’m not talking about the _legality_ of it, I’m talking about the ethics of it!” etc. etc. etc. Third, I don’t take kindly to being accused of being a “dipshit” with faulty reading comprehension by someone who provides links to cites that _don’t agree with what he’s saying_. Even the highly-opinionated Forbes article you linked to made it clear that the real issue at hand is not whether a retailer is permitted to boycott inflammatory against its chief executive, or whether blog-writers are permitted to post what they “discover,” or even whether the “blogosphere” counts as journalism. The issue is whether they are legally bound to reveal their sources when they post corporate espionage, something that granted, you did acknowledge in the first line of your OP but then completely missed the point of in every other thing you’ve written in this thread. **That** is why legitimate news agencies are “concerned” about the status of blogs, because it could set a legal precedent that hurts _real_ news sources. So then _genuine_ journalists could conceivably be limited in their reporting exposes of _genuine_ cases in the public interest, all because some fuckwit wanted to post confidential corporate information on his website and then go running for protection under the First Amendment when he got caught. I see it as the ethical equivalent of Larry Flint wrapping himself in an American flag and making it an issue of free speech, forcing legitimate agencies to get on his side because he’s technically correct, and all because he wanted to publish pictures of women tied up and getting peed on. Fourth, I’m wondering where the hell you get off talking as an authority about “ethics.” > [@Loopydude](#): > > _The employees_, at worst, violated NDAs. So at worst, they intentionally broke a signed legal contract. No, nothing unethical about that. > [@Loopydude](#): > > In this case the journalists _cannot_ violate an NDA because they are not bound by it. Even though they know that the information isn’t being obtained through legitimate channels, and they’re not alerting the public to a threat or danger or scandalous activity, just attracting hits to their website. Nothing unethical about that, either. > [@Loopydude](#): > > The issue Apple is currently arguing is that the bloggers _are not journalists_. And in this case, I agree with Apple. See “journalistic integrity,” above. They’re not trying to shut the bloggers down; they’re trying to find out how they got access to trade secrets, and using a legal definition argument to gain a subpoena, since other routes have failed. Is it perfectly fine and good that it came to this level of legal action? No, it sucks. But how did it get to this point? Because Steve Jobs is a self-righteous asshole? No. His being an asshole is a completely separate issue, which is more than adequately documented elsewhere. You can paint Jobs and Apple as the bad guy all you want, but in doing so, you’re defending people who do no more than break contracts or spread proprietary information for their own gain. > [@Loopydude](#): > > I find it difficult to see how you could make a difinitive argument about the ethics of this case, as it is highly arguable whether or not trade secrets, where the secretive nature of the information is meant to be short-lived, deserve exemption from First Amendment protection. Highly arguable? What the fuck is there to argue? How can you possibly say that it’s in the public interest to announce whether there’s a new iPod coming out? How can you possibly say that it’s worth putting the _real_ issue of journalistic integrity and confidentiality at risk? Fifth, it’s spelled “opinion,” dammit. ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/steve-jobs-vs-journalism-free-speech/301260/32 "2005-04-27T13:52:57Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > This is not a First Amendment Issue, but it is a Free Speech issue. And the difference is? > [@](#): > > Steve Jobs is stifling someone’s ability to communicate, even though he helped create the venue for communication with which he is using to stifle it. No, the _publisher_ creates the venue for communication. Steve Jobs just provides one of the (many, many, many) outlets for distribution. But here we’re just arguing semantics, I think… > [@](#): > > And JohnT: I can’t wait til the world suddenly doesn’t work the way you think it does, because even though you’re a funny dude (based upon your qualifying everything thread) it’ll be great to see the look on everyone’s faces when their assumptions they thought were self-evident suddenly come to be called into question. Happens all the time. The trick is to accept the paradigm shift rather than getting all pissy about it. > [@](#): > > I dunno what the fuck this has to do with ethics. Business ethics is a goddamn oxymoron when you’re at Jobs’ level. And you know this, how? ---
**Author:** ![black\_rabbit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/f19dbf/32.png) [@black\_rabbit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/black_rabbit)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/steve-jobs-vs-journalism-free-speech/301260/33 "2005-04-27T14:19:16Z")
> [@JohnT](#): > > And the difference is? When _anybody_ does anything to restrict the discourse, a freedom of speech and a censorship issue. This can be good, bad, or neither. Even though my employer isn’t the government, they’re still restricting my freedom of speech by not allowing me to browse porn sites at work. When the _government_ does it, it’s a Fo’S, censorship, _and_ a First Amendment issue. **Loopydude** never metioned the First Amendment in his OP, which is why everybody attempting to score a point on the “government” technicality are full of shit. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/steve-jobs-vs-journalism-free-speech/301260/34 "2005-04-27T16:26:52Z")
> [@JohnT](#): > > And the difference is? One is a legal issue the other is a philisophical issue as black455 pointed out. > [@](#): > > No, the _publisher_ creates the venue for communication. Steve Jobs just provides one of the (many, many, many) outlets for distribution. But here we’re just arguing semantics, I think… The venue of communication would be the stores that convey the publisher’s product to the market place. In other words the “Apple Store”. > [@](#): > > Happens all the time. The trick is to accept the paradigm shift rather than getting all pissy about it. Of course, you just said something about the way things work very authoritatively, so I was digging into that. 😉 > [@](#): > > And you know this, how? Because as one gains power the line of ethics becomes increasingly blurred. I don’t know how many times I have seen people argue ethics when really they are arguing their own self-interest, as though ethics has anything to do with them staying filthy rich. I could argue that what Steve Jobs did to Xerox is unethical. I could argue that his treatment of his employees is unethical. I could argue that their ad campaigns misrepresenting their bourgie capitalist pigtoy as though it is some kind of revolution against ‘the man’ is unethical. The line of ethics is blurry as it is, that kind of opulent wealth only makes it blurrier. I know plenty of people who consider making a profit at all to be unethical. Erek ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/steve-jobs-vs-journalism-free-speech/301260/35 "2005-04-27T16:38:39Z")
In case anyone is interested, the new book is written by Jeffrey S. Young, who wrote an excellent account of Jobs and the creation and rise of Apple in the book _“The Journey Is The Reward”_ back in the late eighties. Jobs came off as a brilliant asshole in that book, and while this one is supposed to be more lauditory, I can see where Jobs would be less than pleased about its publication. Young is an excellent writer, however, and he has a wonderful talent for making the technical and business aspects of computerdom seem interesting and understandable. I wasn’t much interested in the new book til I learned that Young was the author. Now I’m looking forward to it. ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/steve-jobs-vs-journalism-free-speech/301260/36 "2005-04-27T16:42:15Z")
Reads thread. Despairingly throws hands in air. Goes home to weep for his country once again… ---
**Author:** ![Harborwolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Harborwolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Harborwolf)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/steve-jobs-vs-journalism-free-speech/301260/37 "2005-04-27T17:37:30Z")
You’re weeping? You consider bloggers to be legitimate journalists and because that load of horseshit won’t sell you’re weeping? The computers for dummies books won’t be sold in apple stores. They’ll still be all over hell and back in other stores, but because people think it’s fine for the Apple store to not sell the Dummy books you’re weeping? People think it’s okay for bloggers to be forced to turn over the leaks of company secrets and for that you are weeping? I think it’s far more weep worthy that people have lost so much faith in journalism that idiots with computers are considered legitimate news sources, but maybe that’s just me. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/steve-jobs-vs-journalism-free-speech/301260/38 "2005-04-27T17:43:06Z")
> [@Harborwolf](#): > > You’re weeping? > > You consider bloggers to be legitimate journalists and because that load of horseshit won’t sell you’re weeping? > > The computers for dummies books won’t be sold in apple stores. They’ll still be all over hell and back in other stores, but because people think it’s fine for the Apple store to not sell the Dummy books you’re weeping? > > People think it’s okay for bloggers to be forced to turn over the leaks of company secrets and for that you are weeping? > > I think it’s far more weep worthy that people have lost so much faith in journalism that idiots with computers are considered legitimate news sources, but maybe that’s just me. I think it’s far more weep worthy that you think that the right to privacy only applies to a narrow group, and think that a big corporation notorious for stealing other company’s secrets has more right to read someone’s e-mail than that person has the right to state what they know free and unfettered. Who cares if a blogger is a ‘journalist’ or not? Erek ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/steve-jobs-vs-journalism-free-speech/301260/39 "2005-04-27T17:51:26Z")
One thing that I think might have gotten overlooked in the bruhaha over the new Jobs biography is that Wiley & Sons sent an early copy of it to Apple for proofing/review, and they were asked to not publish it. The “book ban retaliation” thus appears to be in response to W&S not complying with that request. Whether or not that casts the matter in a new light is up to you. ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/steve-jobs-vs-journalism-free-speech/301260/40 "2005-04-27T17:52:55Z")
> [@SolGrundy](#): > > Okay, first, I don’t take kindly to being called a “twit” by someone who non-ironically uses the term “blogosphere.” And? > [@SolGrundy](#): > > Second, I don’t take kindly to being accused of “arguing out of my ass” by someone who keeps changing his fucking argument as it suits him. I have never done that. The relevant arguments and issues regard FA and financial damage concerns, which I did not spell out for you in monosyllabic terms, unfortunately, are all in the cites, which you apparently have ingored. In short, fuck you. > [@SolGrundy](#): > > "Evil Steve Jobs is refusing to sell books from an entire retailer out of spite! That’s a violation of free speech! Wait, what? That’s not a violation of free speech? Read carefully: The FA issues are related to the _bloggers_. That is what qualifies in this discussion as what I and many others (if you read the fucking cites, ass) constitutes a blatant attack on FA protections. You are deliberately mischaracterizing everything I say. Read what I fucking said: > [@](#): > > …while it’s an executive’s prerogative to choose whomever he wishes to do business with, when the decision is being made in an effort to punish an entire company for saying something he personally doesn’t like, I feel the executive has overstepped the bounds of his reasonable discretion, and entered into the realm of censorship. If the book is slanderous, take them to court. Otherwise, suck it up and deal with people voicing their oppinion like an American fucking-well should. You wanna read into that I said he broke the law? Fine, you may again fuck off. If you read it to mean I’m identifying the ethical breakdown in his actions, which amount to a free speech assault, whether it slips under constitutional radar or no, then you got the message, brainiac. > [@](#): > > Third, I don’t take kindly to being accused of being a “dipshit” with faulty reading comprehension by someone who provides links to cites that _don’t agree with what he’s saying_. Even the highly-opinionated Forbes article you linked to made it clear that the real issue at hand is not whether a retailer is permitted to boycott inflammatory against its chief executive, or whether blog-writers are permitted to post what they “discover,” or even whether the “blogosphere” counts as journalism. Oh, **Sol** , I know it’s complicated, but, you see, as I’ve said over and fucking over again, there are two relevant issues in the thread, one a court battle over the FA, the other a bullying and secretive executive who is penalizing an entire publisher (and all associated authors, _if you only read the fucking cites_) for the unflattering content of one book, which is the purely ethical part of the speech issue, not the legal part. > [@](#): > > The issue is whether they are legally bound to reveal their sources when they post corporate espionage, something that granted, you did acknowledge in the first line of your OP but then completely missed the point of in every other thing you’ve written in this thread. > > **That** is why legitimate news agencies are “concerned” about the status of blogs, because it could set a legal precedent that hurts _real_ news sources. So then _genuine_ journalists could conceivably be limited in their reporting exposes of _genuine_ cases in the public interest, all because some fuckwit wanted to post confidential corporate information on his website and then go running for protection under the First Amendment when he got caught. I see it as the ethical equivalent of Larry Flint wrapping himself in an American flag and making it an issue of free speech, forcing legitimate agencies to get on his side because he’s technically correct, and all because he wanted to publish pictures of women tied up and getting peed on. ::sigh:: If you go to [/QUOTE] [this](http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=15107) page, you will see a link to the _amicus curae_, provided by the news sources backing the bloggers. A relevant quote: > [@](#): > > II. Allegations of illegality do not obviate the protections of the First > Amendment. > > In ruling that the subpoenas to the non-party journalists’ Internet service > provider were not barred by the qualified First Amendment privilege, the Superior > Court placed significant emphasis on the plaintiff’s allegation that the disclosure and > publication of trade secrets is illegal under California law.7 The Superior Court’s emphasis is misplaced for two reasons. First, publication of illegally disclosed > information on a matter of public interest is protected under the First Amendment > where the journalist did not participate in the illegal acquisition of the information. > Second, an allegation of illegality does not permit the government or a civil litigant > to circumvent the protections of the journalist’s privilege to prevent disclosure of > confidential sources. > > A. Publication of trade secrets by journalists who did not violate the > law in obtaining them is protected by the First Amendment. In order to perform its constitutionally protected function of informing the public on matters of public interest and importance, the news media often reports information that the government, corporations or others would prefer to remain secret…Even when corporate activity does not involve malfeasance, the actions of private companies, the products they produce and the services they provide can have a profound impact on people’s choices about their health, economy and lives. Just because a statute seeks to protect the secrecy of such information does not mean that the First Amendment protections provided to the news media to inform the public are wiped away. “Since those activities are protected by the First Amendment, state law may not impinge upon them by characterizing the activities as tortious. Stated differently, the constitutional protection accorded normal news-gathering activities does not depend upon the characterization of the cause of action seeking to impose sanctions upon its exercise.” Nicholson v. McClatchyNewspapers, 177 Cal.App.3d 509, 520 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986). The U.S. Supreme Court addressed this issue in Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. > 514 (2001). > > … > Like the wiretapping statutes at issue in Bartnicki, the trade secret statutes that > form the basis of the plaintiff’s suit in this case prevent disclosure “by a person who > knows or has reason to know” that it was improperly acquired. Cal. Civ. Code § > 3426.1 (b); See also Cal. Penal Code § 499c. As in Bartnicki, it is probable in this > case that the person who misappropriated trade secrets from the plaintiff and gave > them to the non-party journalists violated the law in doing so. But also as in Bartnicki, the non-party journalists’ subsequent publication of that illegally > intercepted information is protected by the First Amendment. > > Under the first part of the Bartnicki test, it has not been alleged, let alone > proven, that the non-party journalists played a part in the illegal interception of the > information. Nor have the non-party journalists been civilly or criminally charged > with violation of the trade secret statutes. 532 U.S. at 525. Under the second part of > the test, the non-party journalists’ access to the information was obtained lawfully, > even though the information itself may have been intercepted unlawfully by someone > else. Id. Under the third part of the test, the information the non-party journalists > reported was on a matter of public concern. > > If the information about the plaintiff’s yet-to-be-released product had been > disclosed by the plaintiff in a public forum, or inadvertently overheard, it certainly > would have been newsworthy. Id. Presumably, the plaintiff will issue press releases > when it announces the product in hopes that the news media will report on the > product. The issue in this case is not whether the information published by the nonparty journalists is newsworthy, the plaintiff is upset rather at when the newsworthy information was released. But the plaintiff’s preferred timing of the release is not one of the factors recognized by the Supreme Court in Bartnicki…It is for the news media to decide, not the plaintiff or the courts, when information becomes newsworthy. > > The Superior Court erroneously relied on Bartnicki and the Supreme Court of > California’s decision in DVD Copy Control Association v. Bunner, 31 Cal.4th 864 > (2003), for the proposition that the First Amendment does not protect journalists’ right to publish trade secrets. Order, 6:13-16 (Pet. Ex. 34, 460:13-16). These cases do not support such a broad proposition, and the differences between the two cases illustrate why the publication of the information in this case is protected. The Supreme Court in Bartnicki specifically did not decide the issue of whether the First Amendment would protect the disclosure of “trade secrets or domestic gossip or other information of purely private concern.” 532 U.S. at 533. California’s trade secret statutes are very broad in the definition of what they protect: > > “Trade Secret” means information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique or process that: > (1) Derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from notbeing generally known to the public or to other persons who can obtain > economic value from its disclosure or use; and > (2) Is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances > to maintain its secrecy. > > Cal. Civ. Code § 3426.1 (d); See also Cal. Penal Code § 499c (9). > > Under an expansive reading of this definition, virtually any information that a company attempts to keep secret, and that could even potentially provide an economic value by remaining secret, is protected. Companies could prevent reporting on myriad matters of public interest and importance, including malfeasance, the development of harmful or unethical products or services, unfair business practices and anything else they would rather the public not know. Such a broad definition would essentially allow companies to control how they are covered in the news media, at the expense of the public. The Supreme Court’s failure to answer the question of whether a “trade secret”, which it did not attempt to define, would be protected under its test in Bartnicki cannot be taken as holding that the Court would permit a prohibition on speech so broad, particularly given the level of protection it found under the facts of Bartnicki. > > The Superior Court cites Bartnicki for the proposition that “[r]eporters and > their sources do not have a licence to violate criminal laws such as Penal Code § > 499c.” Order, 8:9-10 (Pet. Ex. 34, 462:9-10). What Bartnicki actually held on this > issue, in a footnote, is that: > > Our holding, of course, does not apply to punishing parties for obtaining relevant information unlawfully. “It would be frivolous to assert – and no one does in this case – that the First Amendment, in the interest of securing news or otherwise, confers a license on either the reporter or his news sources to violate valid criminal laws. Although stealing documents or private wiretapping could provide newsworthy > information, neither reporter nor source is immune from conviction for such conduct, whatever the impact on the flow of news.” 532 U.S. at 532 n.19 (quoting Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 691 (1972)). > > This language does not mean that California’s trade secret statutes are immune from > constitutional scrutiny. It simply stands for the proposition, not contested in this case, that the First Amendment does not permit journalists to trespass, break and enter, steal or violate other generally applicable criminal laws in order to gather information. The journalists in this case did none of these things.8 The web journaists are reporting information that is of public interest. Simple as that. They are reporting on information that has only finite “secrecy” and will be released in short order into the public domain. There is no clear evidence Apple is being harmed in any way by rumormongering, and it’s a cottage industry in the IT world that has been going on in trade mags for decades now. If you want to rewrite the standards of journalistic integrity and ethics to suit your own definition, that’s your choice to do, but you’re debating out of your arsehole. You have not supplied me with a single legal cite, precedent, opposing view that is inarguable, definitive claim from a legitimate news source the bloggers were operating unethically, not _anything_ in the way of a substantive rebuttal. Just your bullshit hypotheticals, and apparrently your own misinformed views about what constitutes legal and corporate ethics. > [@SolGrundy](#): > > Highly arguable? What the fuck is there to argue? How can you possibly say that it’s in the public interest to announce whether there’s a new iPod coming out? How can you possibly say that it’s worth putting the _real_ issue of journalistic integrity and confidentiality at risk? Well, gee, according to eight major newspapers and the Associated Press, it’s a matter of journalistic discretion, should they not be violating the law. The _real_ interests of journalistic integrity are at risk because the effects of taking that discretion from the press could be devastating. It is an arguable point in some circles, but you have no basis in fact or theory to assert that it’s anywhere near as clear-cut as you claim. I’m inclined to regard that entire line of argument as specious, at best. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/steve-jobs-vs-journalism-free-speech/301260.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/steve-jobs-vs-journalism-free-speech/301260.md?page=3)