Corporations vs. on-line journalists

Companies to websites: All your base are belong to us!

http://news.com.com/Cheers%2C+jeers+for+ruling+on+Apple+bloggers/2100-1030_3-5611908.html?tag=nefd.top
from WinCustomize Forums

Yesterday's court ruling in which companies can force on-line journalists to reveal sources could have a dramatic impact on the world of on-line news.

Consider the ramifications, the ruling states that a company (such as Apple or Microsoft or whomever) can demand that a website that has broken a story about something that was confidential (or under NDA) has to reveal its sources to that company.

This is something that print journalists don't have to worry about. Two years ago, when someone leaked that the wife of a white house critic was working for the CIA, the Washington Post journalist was not required to present who his source was. In other words, even when it potentially affected national security, journalists weren't forced to reveal sources.

However, on-line news sources, such as Neowin, could face having to reveal its sources to any corporate entity that deems the information on the site to be confidential.

This ruling, if it stands, could give immense weight to corporations who want to control what information is provided from news sites.

4,801 views 5 replies
Reply #1 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Whatever happened to Shield Laws? Do these not apply in this situation? I have a feeling this case will be heading for the Supreme Court soon...
Reply #2 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Apple always wins... always!
TouchTasks - Access tasks with ease on Windows touchscreens.
Reply #3 from WinCustomize Forums Top
I don't think this case is going anywhere.

There is no way a judge is going to give the same protection of professional journalist the same rights as a person who just decided to write something one day.


It is like letting a erson who can be a doctor do sergury but he really isn't liscenced.

It's like letting a person drive without a permit.

Its like letting a person designa building but they are not an Architect.

Plus, this case, had more to do with trade secrets then a breaking story such as Apple CEO quits. If Apple was trying to sue for info relating to a investigation of internal harrassment between co-workers leeking out, maybe that would be a story.

The judge tried to keep this to a case of someone putting trade secrets out for public view. Its not air or right and is already illegal.





How about this... go to school, become a journalist, and start your blog.

Now that would be a case for the court. Private journalist being sued for info.
Reply #4 from WinCustomize Forums Top

What exactly defines a "professional" journalist?

Is CNET.com's full time salaried "journalists" not really journalists? How about the numerous political webzines out there? What about game websites? Is IGN.com not professional either?

Reply #5 from WinCustomize Forums Top
This is something that print journalists don't have to worry about.


Actually, it is. The sunshine laws do protect a journalist from having to reveal their source, but that doesn't mean that they cannot be held accountable for doing so. If a judge orders a journalist to reveal their source and they decline, they can be held in contempt of court.

Beyond that, I don't think that the sunshine laws apply to bloggers who received their information from a corporate employee that has most likely broken the terms of their NDA.