Posted on 05/27/2006 9:00:12 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
SAN FRANCISCO, May 26 — A California appeals court ruled Friday that online reporters are protected by the same confidentiality laws that protect traditional journalists, striking a blow to efforts by Apple Computer to identify people who leaked confidential company data.
The three-judge panel in San Jose overturned a trial court's ruling last year that to protect its trade secrets, Apple was entitled to know the source of leaked data published online. The appeals court also ruled that a subpoena issued by Apple to obtain electronic communications and materials from an Internet service provider was unenforceable.
In its ruling, the appeals court said online and offline journalists are equally protected under the First Amendment. "We can think of no workable test or principle that would distinguish 'legitimate' from 'illegitimate' news," the opinion states. "Any attempt by courts to draw such a distinction would imperil a fundamental purpose of the First Amendment."
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Interesting. I think the NY Times has a special interest in "confidentiality laws that protect traditional journalists" about now.
Miller's case was litigated to the SCOTUS - journalists have no special right of secrecy.
how can "Apple issue a subpoena"? if some actual crime was committed here, as opposed to a leak of a trade secret, a court could get that information.
Expect to see SCOTUS overturn this ruling.
Wow!
This, coupled with the recent FEC ruling, makes McCain and hClinton nervous for '08. Both of them have expressed strong interest in having a 'gatekeeper' for the Internet. They don't want the general public to have too much freedom. Their concern is, after all, for the childrennnnnn.
Funny the MSM hails this as a victory for speech since it pertains to them.
Meanwhile, they won't run the Mohammed cartoons and McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform is the law of the land....
This is a ruling by a state court on a matter of state law.
Now, if we could just get this same reasoning to apply to the second amendment, directly to some ugly guns and generally to the very existence of the need for some sort of permit to pack a gun......
Oh wait. Let's not do anything that matters.
For now anyway.
bttt
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.