Slashdot Mirror
Apple Wins Against Bloggers
linuxwrangler writes "Saying that no one has the right to publish information that could have been provided only by someone breaking the law, judge James Kleinberg ruled that online reporters for Apple Insider and PowerPage must reveal their sources. No word yet on an appeal."
This isn't about protecting sources, this is corporate espionage plain and simple. They're not protecting reporting sources, they're shielding criminals.
Does this mean that Robert Novak has to reveal his sources in the Valerie Plame story? Since that involves TREASON, which is a bit more serious than revealing trade secrets, doesn't this ruling apply there as well?
- Spryguy
There are three kinds of people in this world: those that can count and those that can't
Your entire post is irrelevant to the topic at hand, but I'll pick just this piece:
You're wrong in a million ways, but the most important one is this. This particular expression of speech does not in any way present a clear and present danger to life and limb and consequently, it not only "ought" to be protected, it is protected according to the Supreme Court of the United States of America. Threatening someone's profit margin is not the same thing as threatening their safety.
The speech IS protected. No one is going to throw the proprietors of Think Secret, PowerPage, or AppleInsider in jail over their speech.
What is NOT protected are their sources, who are breaking currently in force, legally binding confidentiality agreements to reveal the information, and the fact that the web sites, by publishing said information, are also in violation of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, versions of which have been adopted by 45 states including California.
This is not about speech. This is not about the right to blog. And if you think it's about the employees' right to "speak" about topics covered under confidentiality agreement, apparently someone forgot to tell them, and you, that they don't have to work there if they have that little respect for good-faith agreements with their own employer.
Oh, come off it. Revealing the unethical and borderline murderous behavior of tobacco companies serves a clear and immediate public interest. What "public interest" does it serve to protect the guy who leaks confidential information about the next Power Mac revision?
As the judge wrote, an interested public is NOT the same as a public interest.
I disagree. The fact that wrongdoing was involved (and here I hesitate to characterize the act as criminal, as opposed to civil, being as I am not familiar with CA contract law) is empirically demonstrated by the fact that the only way that the information in question could have been released is if someone under prior restriction (as in an NDA) revealed it to the journalists involved.
The relevant question is, does Apple have a right to discover the identities of the violator(s)?
I believe that they do. Declan McCullagh's article (news.com) on the topic is indicative of the false assumptions made by many people as concerns this case. As the judge correctly surmised, an "interested public" does not equate with "the public interest". The Watergate scandal involved criminal acts that clearly reached to highest levels of government. Apple v. Doe involves a tort committed against a corporation inclear violation of prior agreements. The two are not equivalent.
Freedom of speech and freedom of the press do not, and should not, extend to an ability to withhold the identities of persons who have committed an illegal act. The same would be true even if we were discussing the attorney/client privilege. An attorney who is privy to physical edvidence that his client is guilty can be lawfully compelled to reveal that information.
This is not about corporate interests v. the public interest.