BY DAN
KENNEDY
Serving the reality-based community since 2002.
Notes and observations on
the press, politics, culture, technology, and more. To sign up for
e-mail delivery, click
here. To send
an e-mail to Dan Kennedy, click
here.
For bio, published work, and links to other blogs, visit
www.dankennedy.net.
Monday, March 07, 2005
APPLE PLAYS THE HEAVY. The
New York Times today catches
up with Apple Computer's
boneheaded lawsuit against three websites that traffic in rumors
about new products that the company has in the works. Apple is trying
to force the website operators to turn over their confidential
sources, arguing that trade secrets had been illegally
disclosed.
The principal issue: do shield laws
that protect journalists from having to give up their sources protect
bloggers as well? According to the Times and to
this
invaluable backgrounder by
the Online Journalism Review's Mark Glaser, the answer - under
California law - appears to be a qualified "yes." That is, state law
would appear to get around the sticky problem of defining who's a
journalist by instead protecting the act of journalism.
At a time when it's becoming almost
impossible to say who's a journalist and who isn't, that's as it
should be. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean the bloggers are home
free. The courts, after all, have become notably
reluctant to allow
press-pass-bearing journalists from major news organizations to
protect their sources, never mind bloggers.
SOX TALK. The
Phoenix's Mike Miliard is in Florida following the Red Sox.
He's also started a weblog called - simply enough - Sox
Blog. Check it
out.
posted at 8:25 AM |
1 comments
|
link
1 Comments:
I think the Apple bloggers, and their lawyer(s), are using the wrong precedents.
Court interpretations of shield laws are so much in flux that I don't think any defendant or witness can depend on them in any close circumstance.
Instead I think the proper defense to the subpeonas is in the prior restraint decision by the Supreme Court in the Pentagon Papers case in the early 1970's.
The Court ruled that, under the First Amendment, there can be no prior restraint on publication.
Theoretically, the bloggers could be liable for civil (but likely not criminal) action after-the-fact, but if the blogging individuals themselves didn't steal anything, there's really no case.
Remember, Daniel Ellsberg *did* steal the Penatgon Papers but he was never convicted.
MEDIA LOG ARCHIVES
Dan Kennedy is senior writer and media critic for the Boston Phoenix.
