Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 28th May 2006 00:31 UTC
"In a decision that could set the tone for journalism in the digital age, a California appeals court ruled Friday that bloggers, like traditional reporters, have the right to keep their sources confidential. A panel of three judges said in a 69-page decision that a group of bloggers did not have to divulge their sources to Apple, contending that the same laws that protect traditional journalists, the First Amendment, and California's Shield Law, also apply to bloggers." My take: You already know how I feel about this, but I still need to say it, and I do not care if I get flamed for saying it: this is a clear-cut victory for the freedom of speech and press in the US (I live in The Netherlands, though), and you should all be happy Apple did not win this case. Update: Ars has an analysis and history of the case.
Thread beginning with comment 128582
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:
2006-03-23
Note that if this case was a federal one, the whole point would be moot. There is no federal shield law, as Judith Miller of the NYT found out (and went to jail for not revealing sources). So don't get too happy. But 49 states do have shield laws!
(The ruling here was just that existing shield laws extend to online reporters)