The Federal Election Commission is not the only entity looking to reign in bloggers these days. Apple… of all companies… is also trying to restrict us legally. A San Jose, California case instigated by Apple is significant in that it tries to separate blogs from mainstream media regarding the confidentiality sources, although many blogs are starting to make money and the destinction seems moot and largely about technology. From the San Jose Mercury News:
In a case with implications for the freedom to blog, a San Jose judge tentatively ruled Thursday that Apple Computer can force three online publishers to surrender the names of confidential sources who disclosed information about the company’s upcoming products.
Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge James Kleinberg refused to extend to the Web sites a protection that shields journalists from revealing the names of unidentified sources or turning over unpublished material.
Kleinberg offered no explanation for the preliminary ruling. He will hear arguments today from Apple’s attorneys and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a San Francisco digital rights group representing two of the three Web sites Apple subpoenaed — Apple Insider and PowerPage.
The case raises issues about whether those who write for online publications are entitled to the same constitutional protections as their counterparts in more traditional print and broadcast news organizations.
It would be ironic indeed if Apple Computers ends up leading the charge against new media. Shame on them. (hat tip: Stu)
UPDATE: Perhaps I have this one wrong. I was indeed influenced by the San Jose Mercury News’ take on this matter and am reviewing the comments below. It may be adviseable to withhold an opinion until more information is released by the court. As can be seem from this report about yesterday’s threatened “blog censorship,” some people, possiby myself included, are a little trigger happy here.
AND: In case you’ve missed Gizmodo’s take.
Sorry, but I think you have it wrong. Apple is suing to identify the identities of employees who violated terms of their contracts and signed NDA’s. This isn’t really an issue of freedom of speech, IMO.
Agree with kalel666. Further, those who outed Super Agent Mrs. Joe Wilson must be prosecuted. The reporters of the NY Times are not above the law either.
I guess I’m just a corporation man, but I’m sympathetic to Apple here.
Let me stipulate that I haven’t examined this closely, and may have the details wrong. Having said that, my impression is that Apple has information it considers proprietary, and wishes to keep it secret. It also has employees who have probably explicitly agreed not to divulge that information, then violated that agreement, which is a firing offense. If this was a case of whistle blowing on an illegal practice, such behavior might be justifiable, though still a firing offense. It appears to be a case of ego gratification, or something worse, and the employees deserve no sympathy. Apple is entirely within its rights to pursue them aggresively.
I’ll further stipulate that this is probably not a criminal matter, and thus, there is probably no legal basis for going after the websites. If it were (and I am not certain how I feel about that) then there would be and should be no shield for either the website or a recognized traditional media outlet.
Roger you have it totally wrong (as does the Mercury News, but that’s expected.) First off, the sites in question are not blogs by any stretch of the imagination. Regardless, Apple has a right to identify those who have violated their NDAs and no one has the right to conspire with those individuals to violate Apple’s property rights. And even if the conspirators where mainstream “journalists” the judge would have, and should have, come to the same conclusion.
BTW: The leaks weren’t from Apple employees, most likely it was a graphic artist or some other shlub at one of the companies Apple contracts with to do promotional materials.