In the case of Think Secret, Nick is actively soliciting secret information. There is a difference between overhearing someone speaking about a product they are working on and going around asking people to tell you about stuff you are working on.
If this were just a case of information being overheard I'd be on the side of the bloggers. But this is about asking someone to give you information that they can't, without breaking an NDA, and then hiding behind the journalistic shield laws when you get called out for doing so.
Are you for real? Now we are determining which crimes are more important? Breaking the law is breaking the law. Period. End of story.
As for the ruling, I believe this is the correct one. There is a big difference between being a whistleblower and giving out trade secrets, and leaving the distinction in the case at large to be determined was also spot on.
The First Ammendment is not absolute. (ie. Crying Fire! in a crowded theater) And if that, the most sacred of the ammendments, is not absolute, then neither is a journalist's shield.
Slashdot Mirror
Sing along. I'm sure you know the words...
"It's the end of the world as we know it...It's the end of the world as we know it..."
When he was the Mayor of St Paul, I wanted to get him out of the state. Unfortunately, this wasn't the way I wanted to get rid of him.
In the case of Think Secret, Nick is actively soliciting secret information. There is a difference between overhearing someone speaking about a product they are working on and going around asking people to tell you about stuff you are working on.
If this were just a case of information being overheard I'd be on the side of the bloggers. But this is about asking someone to give you information that they can't, without breaking an NDA, and then hiding behind the journalistic shield laws when you get called out for doing so.
"...isn't as important of a crime" ???
Are you for real? Now we are determining which crimes are more important? Breaking the law is breaking the law. Period. End of story.
As for the ruling, I believe this is the correct one. There is a big difference between being a whistleblower and giving out trade secrets, and leaving the distinction in the case at large to be determined was also spot on.
The First Ammendment is not absolute. (ie. Crying Fire! in a crowded theater) And if that, the most sacred of the ammendments, is not absolute, then neither is a journalist's shield.