Estimated read time: 2-3 minutes
This archived news story is available only for your personal, non-commercial use. Information in the story may be outdated or superseded by additional information. Reading or replaying the story in its archived form does not constitute a republication of the story.
California appeals court has ruled that online reporters are protected by the same confidentiality laws that protect traditional journalists, striking a blow against efforts by Apple Computer to identify people who leaked confidential company data.
On Friday, the three-judge panel in San Jose overturned a trial court's ruling last year that to protect its trade secrets, Apple was entitled to know the source of leaked data published online. The appeals court also ruled that a subpoena issued by Apple to obtain electronic communications and materials from an Internet service provider was unenforceable.
In its ruling, the appeals court said that online and off-line journalists were equally protected under the First Amendment to the U.S. 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.
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.
"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.
If upheld, 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.
"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."
Apple declined to comment on the ruling or the possibility of an appeal.
(C) 2006 International Herald Tribune. via ProQuest Information and Learning Company; All Rights Reserved
