Bloggers can shield sources, court rules

In a decision that could set the tone for journalism in the digital age, a California appeals court ruled Friday that bloggers, like traditional reporters, have the right to keep their sources confidential...

...In their ruling, the judges said the online news sites should be treated as newspapers, television and radio broadcasts are. O'Grady and the other bloggers, they contended, were acting as traditional reporters and editors do: developing sources, collecting information and publishing it, albeit on the Web...

...But Kurt Opsahl, an attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said the companies can still protect their businesses but cannot use reporters as their first resort to expose a leak. "The court upheld strong protections for the free flow of information to the press and from the press to the public," Opsahl said. In addition, the judges ruled that, in the digital age, bloggers' e-mails should also be protected, just like a telephone call or written document. Apple had not sued the bloggers directly but had tried to subpoena their Internet service provider, which had access to the e-mails sent between the confidential source and the bloggers. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, representing the bloggers, intervened. In the end, the judges made little distinction between online journalists and traditional journalists. "Does Walter Cronkite stop being a journalist if he blogs for the Huffington Post (an online news site)?" Opsahl said. "What makes a journalist a journalist is not the format. If you're engaged in journalism, you're a journalist. You have to look beyond the medium selected." ...

In their ruling, the judges said the online news sites should be treated as newspapers, television and radio broadcasts are.

Journalists are just ordinary citizens who happen to have a hose connected to a big ink tank.

We still need to nail down the difference between a journalist, reporter and pundit.

??
You just did - there ain't any.
The only trouble with this case was that both parties couldn't lose. It was correct for the court to rule that there is no difference in law between a blogger and a print journalist. In fact a blogger is more "of the people" even than the print journalist is.
Now a broadcast journalist depends on censorship to create the clear channels in which he is licensed to transmit, and therefore doesn't have a leg to stand on constitutionally. But there ain't a dime's worth of difference between a print journalist who doesn't have a license (First Amendment implies he doesn't need no stinkin' license) and a blogger who doesn't have a license. Say rather, there is a dime's worth of difference between them - the print journalist has the big-bucks publisher behind him - but I thought the courts weren't supposed to consider that!
Obviously this case is headed for appealsville, because it implies that the barrier to entry to the status of "journalist" is - bupkiss! And that means that every Tom, Dick, and Harry is entitled to all the perks that the journalists have been demanding - which is ridiculous. It's ridiculous because the journalists have been abusing their influence to get those perks in the first place; nobody is entitled to be shielded from the duties of a citizen because he's a journalist.
Why Broadcast Journalism is
Unnecessary and Illegitimate

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.