Newspapers Back Apple Bloggers

puke76 writes "Remember the bloggers being sued by Apple? Well now they've attracted the attention and support of some major newspapers. There's a story over at BBC. The newspapers are arguing that journalism sources should be protected. Can we blog without legal repercussions?" From the article: "Recent corporate scandals involving WorldCom, Enron and the tobacco industry all undoubtedly involved the reporting of information that the companies involved would have preferred to remain unknown to the public..."

Comments

Where does it stop?

[singularity]

I am an ardent backer of free journalism, but I see this case pushing a very fine line. Where does "journalism" stop and "somebody just writing something down" start?

Suppose someone writes a trade secret in an anonymous Slashdot story submission? In an anonymous Slashdot comment? In a LiveJournal entry? In a Slashdot journal entry?

Should these all be protected under the guise of journalism?

The Internet blurs the line between professional journalism and amateur writing, which is one of the great things about the new levels of communication that is available to anyone able to get online.

This case can hold the precedence to start the "slippery slope" of protecting anything written online. While this might sound like a wonderful idea to the "Information wants to be free" crowd, I see it as being very dangerous.

This case is a bad test of the "bloggers as journalists" question anyway. Had a paper newspaper done the exact same thing, the law would not protect the paper either. ThinkSecret knowingly asked someone to disclose a trade secret, and then knowingly published this "secret" for no reason other than to publish it (and maybe reap some ad revenue).

Since when did the BBC...

[lxt]

...become a "newspaper"?

I actually heard a report on BBC Radio today about Apple's image, which touched upon the whole rumour site issue - they had an interview with the EFF lawyer who defended the sites. The basic point was Apple had slightly tarnished it's "little kid taking on the world" image.

Comparisons not valid.

[unclethursday]

Recent corporate scandals involving WorldCom, Enron and the tobacco industry all undoubtedly involved the reporting of information that the companies involved would have preferred to remain unknown to the public...

Except that the ThinkSecret et al cases have nothing to do with the whistle blowing that went on with Enron, WorldCom, and the tobacco industry. If the blogger sites had found out information that Apple was cooking the books and defrauding their stockholders and raiding their employees 401K plans and other retirement funds, or was knowingly coating their products in a toxic chemical that will eventually lead to a debilitating or fatal disease, then there would be similarities.

Releasing info on upcoming products that, while the public would be interested in for other reasons but do not affect the greater good of the public, is not whistle blowing. In the "public's interest" and for the Public Good are two entirely different things.

Basically, these news organizations and the AP are trying to ensure they cover their asses in the future, hoping that they can still protect whistle blowers, but it sounds to me like they have completely forgotten what the term whistle blower means. Either that, or a lot of the reporters had planned on doing similar things, and don't want to face the repercussions of doing so. Either way, they are in the wrong on this issue, not Apple.

One thing to blog...

[feloneous cat]

And quite another to be charging advertisers.

Let's face it, these are not Uncle Joe blogging about a rumor, these are folks making a buck off someone breaking a confidential agreement. Even bona fide journalists go to jail when they break the law or encourage someone to break the law to get a story.

I don't like NDA's, but the reality is they are legal and binding agreements. And breaking an NDA to get a 10-20 jump on an announcement is, in my view, rather stupid.