Another blow for bloggers: No protection of sources says California judge.

'Blogger fear' in Apple leak case

Friday, 4 March, 2005
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4319715.stm

Three blogs which published sensitive information about upcoming Apple products could be made to disclose where the leaks came from.

A California judge said in a preliminary ruling that bloggers should not have the same protection afforded to journalists under US law.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), representing the sites, said it was disappointed with the ruling.

The case's outcome could be far-reaching for bloggers and writers.


edit: title

Should bloggers have the same protection of sources as do other journalists?

the same protections as any other journalists.

It's not a matter of who you are; it's a matter of what you do.

I have a journalism degree, but I don't think that that's required to call yourself a reporter. This sounds like a bad ruling to me. Pretty much anyone who writes and publishes information can be called a journalist.

There was a time when TV journalists were new. Same thing for radio. Is everyone who has a blog a journalist? No. Same thing can be said for the other mediums too.

they can be forced to disclose their sources today if they are protecting a source who broke the law, such as in the Valerie Plame case. Disclosing trade secrets might be another reason.

Otherwise, freedom of speech should protect the writings to any type of journalist, including bloggers.

I don't think there are ANY laws giving any protection to journalists other than what is in the 1st Amendment regarding "Congress shall make no law..."

If there was a law granting special privileges and protections to journalists, there would have to be a uniform registration or licensing of those journalists, right? Otherwise, how would anyone know whether a particular person was entitled to the special protections? Obviously, there is nothing like that in place.

It's part of the ethics of journalism, but it's no law.

it implies that there IS special protections for journalists. Could it be that this is a tradition rather than a law? But if so, why is it the subject of a court decision?

I'm not a lawyer. I don't know this set of issues very well. But disclosing trade secrets can be subject to prosecution. If the Washington Post published confidential business information, I would have thought they could be sued, too.

THE BASICS

The California Shield Law provides legal protections to journalists seeking to maintain the confidentiality of an unnamed source or unpublished information obtained during newsgathering

WHO IT PROTECTS

The Shield Law protects a "publisher, editor, reporter, or other person connected with or employed unpon a newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication, or by a press association or wire service" and a "radio or television news reporter or other person connected with or employed by a radio or television station." The Shield Law also likely applies to stringers, freelancers, and perhaps authors.

WHAT INFORMATION IS PROTECTED

The source of any information. There need be no assurance or expectation of confidentiality.
Unpublished information
Specific information obtained during newsgathering but not disclosed to the public
Includes "all notes, outlines, photographs, tapes or other data of whatever sort"
Includes newsgatherer's eyewitness observations in a public place
Applies even if published information was based upon or related to unpublished intormation
Protects only information obtained during newsgathering

much more info at:

http://www.thefirstamendment.org/shieldlaw.html

It doesn't seem like a whole lot more protection than any citizen has. They can still be called to court to testify in a whole number of cases (including but not limited to Grand Juries). Every citizen retains the right to remain silent, journalist or not.

It might make more difference in practice than that, but it doesn't seem like it's a lot of protection on paper.

it prevents a journalist from being held in contempt in most circumstances. They are still subject to most other legal sanctions where applicable.