Slashdot Mirror
Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger to Arrive in April
Silly Burrito writes "Think Secret is reporting that Tiger will be out in April with an event on April 1st and it should be out in stores by April 15th. If this is true, I can finally get both the Mini and a new Powerbook, as I've been waiting for Tiger to be released before I do so. Let's just hope that this isn't a bad April Fools Joke!"
The free speech rights of journalists are not trampled upon. There is NO constitutional right for journalists to keep the names of their sources secret. Some states have laws that protect this right, but there is neither a federal constitutional right nor a common law privilege. The state laws are not absolute privileges either -- in the California case, the judge ruled that California's shield law does not cover the type of reporting done by the fan sites.
From the ruling: "Unlike the whistleblower who discloses a health, safety or welfare hazard affecting all, or the government employee who reveals mismanagement or worse by our public officials, (the enthusiast sites) are doing nothing more than feeding the public's insatiable desire for information."
This seems to be lost in all the hysteria over Apple's suit. Apple is NOT suing ThinkSecret for damages. They are suing ThinkSecret only to get the names of the people who did reveal trade secrets. Those people broke their NDAs and Apple wants to go after them for breach of contract. There is, of course, no "free speech" right to break a contract in which you agreed not to reveal those secrets. Apple's target is those people, and that's what the law suit is about.
Now, since ThinkSecret is refusing to reveal the names of those sources, and since there's no privilege to keep those names secret, it is in contempt of court. This is a fundamental aspect of our justice system, that the litigants are entitled to "everyman's evidence." You definitely want this. Think about it. If you were in an accident and none of the witnesses want to testify, where does that leave you? You can subpoena them to testify in court and reveal what they know, and if they refuse, they can be held in contempt of court. This is exactly analogous.
Don't let the label "journalist" fool you. We are all journalists -- we post on a blog and we report what we see and what we think. If you are going to give "journalists" a right to keep quiet about evidence, then everyone would have this right, and our system would not function. The First Amendment emphatically does not allow you to keep silent in court unless you have an applicable privilege.
That's pretty irresponsible, don't you think? You, as a professional journalist, are an opinion-maker. You're essentially dismissing Apple's case in the court of public opinion based on grounds that would never stand up in an actual court.