RSSJudge: Web Sites Must Reveal Sources
By Nate Mook | Published March 4, 2005, 10:09 AM
Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge James Kleinberg issued a preliminary ruling Thursday that states three Mac enthusiast sites can be forced to expose their sources to Apple Computer. Kleinberg said journalistic protections do not cover Web sites, and will hear further arguments Friday from Apple and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF).
The hearings stem from a lawsuit filed by Apple against Web sites that reported about an upcoming FireWire-based interface for GarageBand, code-named Asteroid. Apple claimed its "trade secrets" were illegally disclosed and issued subpoenas demanding information the individuals who leaked the news.
The suit has sparked an outcry across the Internet from many who feel journalists should not be forced to reveal their sources, and has prompted the EFF to offer legal counsel. The EFF requested that the court block Apple's subpoenas, which Kleinberg denied Thursday.
For its part, Apple claims the "shield laws" that protect journalists from revealing their sources only cover "legitimate press," which does not include such Web sites. Apple also filed a similar lawsuit in January against rumor site Think Secret, which is run by Harvard University student Nicholas Ciarelli.
Judge Kleinberg agreed with Apple's stipulation in his decision on Thursday, but has yet to make a final ruling.
"The question unanswered by the preliminary ruling is what are legitimate members of the press? It's custom for a news outlet to credit one of its peers for breaking a story. I can think of several print publications -- all arguably legitimate press -- that credited ThinkSecret for breaking news on iPod mini," Jupiter Research senior analyst Joe Wilcox told BetaNews.
"I would think that other legitimate members of the press regarding at least one these sites as legitimate press to be enough validation."
Wilcox noted the larger issue at stake in the case is blogging. "Blogs have become an important back-channel for disseminating information. But I would argue that most bloggers are not legitimate members of the press because they aren't bound by journalistic ethics."
"I would consider any site that follows good journalistic practice of three sources, particularly on rumored products, to be reasonably legitimate," added Wilcox. "I wonder how much of the preliminary ruling is colored by perceptions about blogging."
The Constitution of the United States doesn't make a distinction between media outlet types (TV, Newspaper, Magazine, Web Site or Web Blogger) when it speaks about "free speech" and "freedom of the press". It protects the individual’s right to "free speech" and the "freedom of the press". If Apple gets away with this type of attack on web based media; what will be next? If the Washington Post broke a story like "Watergate" today but published it on its web site; could be compelled to divulge their sources? Would or could Beta News be compelled to divulge their sources since they have no print publication or media outlet as required by the California law. I hope this goes to the US Supreme Court; the California Law should be found to be unconstitutional.
Score: 0
|They could always claim that it came from an "anonymous tip" and that they did not know the real identity of the individual.
Alister
Score: 0
|True, but generally it is better NOT to lie in a court of law due to the outcome if you're caught.
Look at where Martha Stewart ended up.
Score: 0
|apples to oranges i'd argue (future pun intended).
stewart lied to the gov. investigators, these people would be lying to apple.
i think it's more interesting now to see if someone tries to sue cnn.com to reveal a source.
Score: 0
|"journalistic ethics" ?? Isn't that an oxymoron??
Watching the so-called 'news' leads me to believe that journalists in general have no ethics... until it comes time to divulge their sources.
So... why should a self-appointed "journalist" be required to divulge their sources? Let Apple do their own investigation as to where their security leak is.
enjoy
Score: 0
|"Despite popular misunderstanding the right to freedom of the press guaranteed by the first amendment is not very different from the right to freedom of speech. It allows an individual to express themselves through publication and dissemination. It is part of the constitutional protection of freedom of expression. It does not afford members of the media any special rights or privileges not afforded to citizens in general."
Taken from http://www.law.cornell.e...cs/first_amendment.html
In short Google is awesome and most Journalisim is yellow anyhow, Fox News isn't news it's right wing propaganda, and I'd rather read 2nd hand news than "legitimate press" any day of the week because I might just get some truth.
The beatuy of the internet is that people who cannot afford to do mass print, telivision, and/or radio press have a voice.
Score: 0
|Journalistic ethics is the same as saying a lawyer has legal ethics. Lawyer should be spelled LIAR...since they all are. I also agree Fox News is so blatantly politically one-sided they should be made to pay a fee for advertising not news reporting. Especially Sean Hanity. I think he is hoping to become a presidential appointee. They turned a good news source into pure trash. Many websites are far more likely to tell the truth.
Score: 0
|So, would you agree that CNN is the Communist News Network that spews Liberal lies?
Score: 0
|Indeed. And CBS sleeps in the same Liberal/Lefty propaganda bed.
Come to think of it, Fox News is quite unique, as far as the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy(tm) goes...
Score: 0
|What about CNN is communist or leftist? Give me ONE example...
Score: 0
|calm down kids, Fox news is right wing propoganda, and everyone else is left wing propoganda. This isn't new news.
Score: 0
|