Judge Rules Blogger Journalists Not Shielded

[DudeAsInCool]

Blogger fear' in Apple leak case/The ruling could be a blow for bloggers

Three blogs which published sensitive information about upcoming Apple products could be made to disclose where the leaks came from.

A California judge said in a preliminary ruling that bloggers should not have the same protection afforded to journalists under US law.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), representing the sites, said it was disappointed with the ruling.

Read more here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4319715.stm

[DudeAsInCool]

The Judge must be an idiot. Basically he doesnt recognize that one can be a journalist if they work on the web platform. What difference does it make if the journalist works in magzines, newspaper, radio, cable or the internet? :reallymad:

[method77]

Perhaps it's time they create judge-bots. Maybe then we will start hearing about reasonable decisions

[DudeAsInCool]

Perhaps it's time they create judge-bots.

[ASUmusicMAN]

man, that's sad and kinda suprising...not cool

[Ken]

They'll be posting through anon means or out the of the U.S. I guess.

It seems only the chosen media will be allowed to exist............you know, the ones that are OWNED by unnamed individuals with an agenda.

[DudeAsInCool]

NEWS ANALYSIS

At a Suit's Core: Are Bloggers Reporters, Too?

By JONATHAN GLATER

Published: March 7, 2005

In the physical world, being labeled a journalist may confer little prestige and may even evoke some contempt. But being a journalist can also confer certain privileges, like the right to keep sources confidential. And for that reason many bloggers, a scrappy legion of online commentators and pundits, would like to be considered reporters, too.

A lawsuit filed in California byApple Computer is drawing the courts into that question: who should be considered a journalist?

The case, which involves company secrets that Apple says were disclosed on several Web sites, is being closely followed in the world of online commentators, but it could have broad implications for journalists working for traditional news organizations as well.

If the court, in Santa Clara County, rules that bloggers are journalists, the privilege of keeping news sources confidential will be applied to a large new group of people, perhaps to the point that it may be hard for courts in the future to countenance its extension to anyone.

"It's very serious stuff," said Brad Friedman, who describes himself as an investigative blogger (his site is bradblog.com). "Are they bloggers because they only publish online? I think you have to look at what folks are doing. And if they're reporting, then they're reporters."

Apple has long had a devoted following, and leaked information about new Apple products has appeared on Web sites for years. To combat this, the company filed the suit late last year against the sources of these leaks - people the company assumes are employees or contractors.

Apple has asked the court to compel the Web sites that displayed the product information to disclose their identity. Bloggers are fighting Apple's efforts, which it has focused on three Web sites - Thinksecret.com, Appleinsider.com and PowerPage.org.

The judge in the case, James Kleinberg, is required only to interpret a California statute that recognizes a privilege protecting reporters in keeping news sources confidential. A ruling could come as early as this week.

On its face, the lawsuit brought by Apple has to do with theft of trade secrets. But Susan Crawford, a law professor at Cardozo law school of Yeshiva University (and a blogger herself), says that the steps Apple has asked the court to take open a broader question.

"Under what circumstances should an online forum be forced to disclose a source behind information that they're posting?" Ms. Crawford said. "There is no principled distinction between a New York Times reporter and a blogger for these purposes. Both operate as news sources for wide swaths of the general public."

Read more here:

http://nytimes.com/2005/03/07/technology/07blog.html

[slum_goddess]

*sigh* is it a coincidence that this is going on at the same time about the linking to partisan sites thing? like kos? (can't be arsed to find it...sleepy)

[DudeAsInCool]

White House admits 1st blogger to briefing

Garrett M. Graff, 23, writes Fishbowl D.C., a Web log about the news media in Washington. He decided to see if he could get a daily pass for a briefing after a recent controversy raised questions about White House access and who is a legitimate reporter.

Graff said he got his pass after a week of asking. "The briefing room ought to be an inclusive place," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said. Historically, he said, the White House has admitted "the traditional media and the nontraditional media, as well as colorful individuals with certain points of view from the left and the right."

Read more here:

http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2005/03/07/blogger/index.html

[slum_goddess]

garrett's first posts from the pressroom; they begin w/'This post, it seems, marks the first blog from a White House press briefing. We're sitting in the fourth row waiting between the 9:45 a.m. gaggle and the 12:30 p.m. briefing. Cameramen and reporters are milling around, reading novels, newspapers, and stepping outside for a smoke. Fox News's Carl Cameron just passed by. All-in-all, it's been a remarkably uneventful morning--which, we're told, is what most mornings are like at the White House...'

[DudeAsInCool]

Apple wins trade secrets legal dispute

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Rachel Konrad

March 11, 2005  |  San Jose, Calif. -- A judge on Friday ordered three independent online reporters to divulge confidential sources in a lawsuit brought by Apple Computer Inc., ruling that they were not protected by the First Amendment because they published trade secrets.

The ruling alarmed speech advocates, who saw the case as a test of whether people who write for Web publications enjoy the same legal protections as reporters for mainstream publications. Among those are protections afforded under California's "shield" law, which is meant to encourage the publication of information in the public's interest.

The reporters -- who run sites followed closely by Apple enthusiasts -- allegedly published product descriptions that Apple said employees had leaked in violation of nondisclosure agreements and possibly the U.S. Trade Secrets Act.

Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge James Kleinberg ruled that no one has the right to publish information that could have been provided only by someone breaking the law.

http://www.salon.com/tech/wire/2005/03/11/apple/index.html

[Redneck4sure]

Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge James Kleinberg ruled that no one has the right to publish information that could have been provided only by someone breaking the law.

Thank you.

[DudeAsInCool]

The laws should still apply when the public's interest takes precedent...whether or not the information is obtained unlawfully... e.g. The Pentagon Papers

[Redneck4sure]

I'm not against that. I don't think someone has the right to steal Apple trade secrets and publish them in any format and think that is legal. To me the web site operators that published this info should be arrested and/or sued. They are no different than the getaway car driver for a bank robber.

[DudeAsInCool]

Apple's Legal Drive to Stifle Web Sites Is Fruitless So Far

By JOHN MARKOFF

Published: March 24, 2005

SAN FRANCISCO, March 23 - Since Apple Computer filed a lawsuit in January against Think Secret, a Web site operated by a 19-year-old Harvard student, accusing the site of publishing Apple's trade secrets, the company has sent a series of cease-and-desist letters to the student, Nicholas M. Ciarelli.

So far, the letters appear to have done nothing to reduce Mr. Ciarelli's enthusiasm. He has continued to publish articles about Apple's new product plans.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/24/technolo...UdVRVR1NRdPYl+Q