Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 9th Apr 2006 18:29 UTC
I'm from the Netherlands. That may sound like a weird statement to start a column with-- don't worry, at the end of this week's Sunday Eve Column you'll understand why I put my nationality so bluntly up front.
Thread beginning with comment 113278
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:
2005-07-06
Information, in general, is not property. Information like the kind Apple tried to prevent sites from disclosing has no special protection under the law. Its not copyrightable work, its not a trade mark, its not a trade secret, its not something patentable. That's why the NDA is there in the first place --- its the only contractual obligation the recipient of the information has to not reveal it to anyone else. If the person breaches that NDA, well, tough for them --- Apple has legal recourse against that person, but not against anybody who might propagate that information further.
Moreover, your analogy about fire and crowded theaters is not acurate. There is precedent that free speech must be controlled when it presents a "clear and present" danger. Its a rationalization of the overall principle --- your right to free speech ends when it places other people at immediate risk, ie, it interferes with their right to life. However, that isn't applicable here. Apple doesn't have a right to a splashy intro for a new product.
PS: As far as I know, hate speech is still protected under the law in the United States. Some less civilized countries across the pond have laws against it, but its still protected here.