[Star Traveler]

Here's an interesting post, from a reader, on this news story ... it's further on down the page ...

---

D-Rock Says:
April 26th, 2010 at 2:36 pm

I’m not a lawyer, but I do have a journalism degree, and I’m pretty sure there are some limits to most shield laws. Also, I’m fairly certain that felony theft is not protected.

Here’s my question. Should gadget blogging be afforded the same protections of other traditional journalists?

This whole sorry episode is about a company’s prototype product that was either lost or stolen, and when it was found or “found” it was not returned to the rightful owner, as prescribed by local law. Then this private property was exposed to the world by a blog. This is not about government or public info. It was not about uncovering any legal or ethical wrongdoing by Apple. It was about covering Apple’s possibly stolen private property that they had chosen not to share with the public at the time. How was the public interest or public good served by exposing this product? Is your life somehow better now that you know about it? Did it enhance society in any way?

Mr. Chen may still avoid charges because of the shield laws. The police are probably collecting information to see if he can or should be charged with a crime. They’re also probably seeking the identity of the gentleman who sold the iPhone to Gizmodo.

Who’s within their rights here? I don’t know. Obviously I think Gizmodo may have crossed the line in this story. I hate to seem them rewarded for their behavior with the money they made from all the traffic to their site. However, I’d hate to seem them as the martyr too.

[itsahoot]

They’re also probably seeking the identity of the gentleman who sold the iPhone to Gizmodo.

Gee, what if it turns out it was the guy who claimed to have lost it?

[zeugma]

Who’s within their rights here? I don’t know. Obviously I think Gizmodo may have crossed the line in this story. I hate to seem them rewarded for their behavior with the money they made from all the traffic to their site. However, I’d hate to seem them as the martyr too.

If the new york slimes can get away with publishing documents that put our soldiers in harms way, surely Gizmodo should be protected by the First Amendment as well.

Personally, I thought the entire storyline that went with this was great reading, and good journalism. Tech stuff is what these guys do. Until they got the letter from Apple claiming the property they didn't know for sure that what they had wasn't some chicom knock-off. (which it could have easily been).

 I understand Apple's desire for secrecy, as they use it as a marketing tool, but I really don't understand folks jumping on Gizmodo's case about it.