Appeals Court: Internet News Reporters and Bloggers Protected by Shield Laws
Jim Kouri, CPP
May 28, 2006
A California appeals court has ruled that online reporters, commentators and bloggers are protected by the same confidentiality laws that protect print and broadcast journalists, striking a blow against efforts by Apple Computer to identify people who leaked confidential company data, according to the New York Times.?
A three-judge panel in San Jose on Friday overturned a lower court ruling last year that to protect its trade secrets, Apple was entitled to know the source of leaked data published online, said the International Herald Tribune on Sunday.
The appeals court decision also stipulated that a subpoena issued by Apple to obtain electronic communications and materials from an Internet news service was unenforceable.?In its ruling, the appeals court said that online and off-line journalists were equally protected under the First Amendment to the US Constitution.?
"We can think of no workable test or principle that would distinguish 'legitimate' from 'illegitimate' news," the opinion states.
"Any attempt by courts to draw such a distinction would imperil a fundamental purpose of the First Amendment," which guarantees freedom of the press.
The ruling states that Web sites are covered by California's shield law protecting the confidentiality of journalists' sources, according to court papers.?
Apple had argued that Web sites publishing reports about Apple were not engaged in legitimate news gathering but were misappropriating trade secrets and violating copyrights. But the appellate panel disagreed, said the International Herald Tribune story.?
"Beyond casting aspersions on the legitimacy of petitioners' enterprise, Apple offers no cogent reason to conclude that they fall outside the shield law's protection," the ruling states.?
The ruling could have a far- reaching impact in California courts on other writers who publish electronically, including bloggers who regularly post news and opinion online without the backing of a mainstream news operation, according to the Times story.?
"This ruling will probably prove instructive to other online writers," said Kurt Opsahl, a lawyer with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a civil liberties organization, who argued the case in front of the appeals court last month.
"It says that what makes a journalist is not the format but the function."?
The ruling will also impact upon mainstream news organizations, many of which are owned by corporations. The court imparted legitimacy to independent reporters, commentators and bloggers, as well as recognizing the significance of electronic journalism.
A three-judge panel in San Jose on Friday overturned a lower court ruling last year that to protect its trade secrets, Apple was entitled to know the source of leaked data published online, said the International Herald Tribune on Sunday.
The appeals court decision also stipulated that a subpoena issued by Apple to obtain electronic communications and materials from an Internet news service was unenforceable.?In its ruling, the appeals court said that online and off-line journalists were equally protected under the First Amendment to the US Constitution.?
"We can think of no workable test or principle that would distinguish 'legitimate' from 'illegitimate' news," the opinion states.
"Any attempt by courts to draw such a distinction would imperil a fundamental purpose of the First Amendment," which guarantees freedom of the press.
The ruling states that Web sites are covered by California's shield law protecting the confidentiality of journalists' sources, according to court papers.?
Apple had argued that Web sites publishing reports about Apple were not engaged in legitimate news gathering but were misappropriating trade secrets and violating copyrights. But the appellate panel disagreed, said the International Herald Tribune story.?
"Beyond casting aspersions on the legitimacy of petitioners' enterprise, Apple offers no cogent reason to conclude that they fall outside the shield law's protection," the ruling states.?
The ruling could have a far- reaching impact in California courts on other writers who publish electronically, including bloggers who regularly post news and opinion online without the backing of a mainstream news operation, according to the Times story.?
"This ruling will probably prove instructive to other online writers," said Kurt Opsahl, a lawyer with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a civil liberties organization, who argued the case in front of the appeals court last month.
"It says that what makes a journalist is not the format but the function."?
The ruling will also impact upon mainstream news organizations, many of which are owned by corporations. The court imparted legitimacy to independent reporters, commentators and bloggers, as well as recognizing the significance of electronic journalism.
Print
Email
