I really can't believe that Apple Computer lost their cases against the bloggers who were trying to get information about leakers.
On the first point of the case, I would totally agree with the court. Bloggers should be protected as is the traditional media journalists. It really doesn't matter that the vast majority of bloggers are hacks (perhaps me included according to some). What matters is that the Internet and its ability to get information to the nation in a quick and easy format is essential in today's world. I can't say that the medium itself should matter in determining who is journalists or who is not. I mean if the people at publications like the National Enquirer are considered journalists, then the bloggers must certainly be considered so as well.
News is always a subjective item no matter how much journalists in many different areas try to pretend that they are objective. First of all, it would be nearly impossible to look at events and describe them in a totally subjective way. On the other hand, I don't think very many journalists even try to be subjective. They allow their personal biases to dictate not only what they are covering, but also how they cover it.
So, the second point of the case is where I have a real beef with the judicial system. They are basically saying that they don't care if people are breaking the law in order to receive and report on information. Now, perhaps this should be true in cases where public interest is involved. I'm thinking a rogue or dirty politician or maybe a company that is hiding information that would adversely affect customers. What shouldn't be in the case is that you allow these same journalists to break the law just in order to supply information to a public hungry for any and all information.
In my opinion, this case should highlight the differences between 'public interest' and 'interested public'. These are not the same at all. 'Public Interest' occurs when releasing information helps in protecting the public from harm. "Interested Public" is releasing information based solely on the public's desire to know EVERYTHING. There is absolutely no reason why someone breaking a nondisclosure agreement and those helping them (and perhaps enticing them) to do so should be protected simply because someone wants to know. Under the court's ruling in this case, it is basically saying that all and any nondisclosure agreements can be broken without harm coming to those who publish the information released. They are not saying that Apple can't sue those who broke the agreements, but they can say that journalists who help and entice them to break the agreements are not liable for anything.
Let me give you what is perhaps an extreme example. A journalist puts out a notice that states they would like to hear from anyone that is about to commit a crime. So, someone contacts them and tells them not only that they are about to rob a bank, but exactly how and when it will be done. On the day of the crime, the reporter publishes his/her piece on the crime. They police, knowing that the reporter must obviously have inside information, ask the journalist who told them about the crime. The journalist then claims that they do not need to reveal their source. Now, tell me how the journalist should be legally protected in this case? The public certainly is interested in the crime, but in no way is keeping this criminal's identity secret protecting the public interest.
I don't really care whether it is a criminal law being broken, as in my example, or a civil law being broken, as in the Apple case. It is a crime and the judicial system should have every right to find out all the facts from every source when the information is basically feeding the public's thirst for information and provides no real public purpose. What makes this case even worse is that the bloggers are actively soliciting information that they know to be protected by nondisclosure agreements and without this open solicitation, the law breakers would probably never break their agreements.
I hope Apple takes this a step further and highlights not that these bloggers are not journalists, but that there is an absolute and distinct difference between 'interested public' and 'public interest'.
Comments