Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 20th Dec 2007 10:22 UTC
Legal As we say in Dutch, de kogel is door de kerk: Think Secret will cease all activities after reaching a settlement with Apple in a lawsuit Apple had filed against the website. In exchange for closing down Think Secret, Nick DePlume, its owner, will not have to reveal its sources to Apple. The press release on the Think Secret website reads: "Apple and Think Secret have settled their lawsuit, reaching an agreement that results in a positive solution for both sides. As part of the confidential settlement, no sources were revealed and Think Secret will no longer be published." My take: I have respect for the way DePlume protected his sources; very commendable. I have, however, little respect for Apple in this case (I have written, rather controversially, about it before), and it just scares the living daylights out of me that a company can exert this much power over independent websites.
Thread beginning with comment 292489
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Pardon?
by mind!dagger on Thu 20th Dec 2007 17:16 UTC in reply to "RE: Pardon?"
mind!dagger
Member since:
2007-06-26

I absolutely love when people misinterpret `Freedom of Speech`. It's not `absolute` in nature.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is a part of the Bill of Rights.

It prohibits the `federal` legislature from making laws `respecting an establishment of religion`, the `Establishment Clause` or that prohibit free exercise of religion, the `Free Exercise Clause`. It also limits the federal system from passing laws that infringe the freedom of speech, infringe the freedom of the press, limit the right to assemble peaceably, or limit the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The courts have interpreted these freedoms more broadly. As the first sentence in the body of the U.S. Constitution reserves all law-making, `legislative` authority to Congress, the courts have held that the First Amendment's terms also extend to the executive and judicial branches. Wish our current people in power would read the document they have sworn to protect.

Our Supreme Court has held that the `Due Process` clause of the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment `incorporates` the limitations of the First Amendment to restrict also the states.

But is the right to speak absolute? No. These laws are in respect of civil liberties one has when dealing with governments be they federal, state or local. Person to government and government to person. It does not cover slander, libel or other defamatory speech.

The American prohibition on defamatory speech or publications, `slander and libel` traces its origins to established English law. A corporation, a person under the law, can make a legal action. Intent plays a huge part in what a justice or court will look at.

If the publisher, be it print or electronic, publishes a statement with `actual malice`, then damages can be awarded to the person who is being harmed. I have a strong feeling there is more here than is being published. Freedom of the press, like freedom of speech, is subject to restrictions on bases such as defamation law.

The French revolutionary document, the `Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen`, suggests that `every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom.`

Would someone clarify if these rights have slander and libel clauses or even stipulations on damages when a person or corporate secrets are involved?

In any case, this is an excellent story to watch and discuss.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Pardon?
by tyrione on Fri 21st Dec 2007 12:39 in reply to "RE[2]: Pardon?"
tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

Where would both the French Revolution and the American Revolution be without Sir Thomas Paine and his wise vision?

Reply Parent Score: 2