First Amendment win for bloggers

San Jose Mercury News: Apple loses case against bloggers. From the article:

Applying traditional First Amendment protections to the exploding universe of online journalism, a state appeals court on Friday rejected Apple Computer's bid to unearth the identities of individuals who leaked inside information on a new company product to bloggers.

In a 69-page ruling, the San Jose-based 6th District Court of Appeal broke new ground by concluding that bloggers and Web masters enjoy the same protections against divulging confidential sources as established media organizations. Civil liberties groups and journalism organizations have argued that online journalists need to protect the confidentiality of sources just as much as traditional media, such as the New York Times and CNN.

Journalists covet the ability to protect the identity of sources as a key to gathering news. The appeals court's firm endorsement of journalistic shields for online media sets up what could be a crucial First Amendment showdown in the California Supreme Court if Apple continues to press its case.

Apple triggered the closely watched case two years ago when the company went to court to pry loose the identities of individuals who leaked internal company documents on a new product called ``Asteroid'' to three Web pages devoted to Apple-related news. Among other things, the plans for Asteroid, including an exact drawing of the yet-to-be released digital music device, were posted on a Web site called PowerPage, operated by Pennsylvania blogger Jason O'Grady.

Apple has argued that it is entitled to the identities of the bloggers' sources in order to protect its trade secrets and punish anybody who stole and distributed them. A Santa Clara County judge sided with Apple last year, but the appeals court overturned that decision Friday.

The 6th District, in a unanimous three-justice ruling, rejected Apple's argument that bloggers are not covered by California and federal laws protecting the confidentiality of journalists' sources and should not be afforded the same protections as traditional news organizations.

``We decline the implicit invitation to embroil ourselves in questions of what constitutes `legitimate journalism,' '' Justice Conrad Rushing wrote for the court. ``The shield law is intended to protect the gathering and dissemination of news, and that is what petitioners did here. We can think of no workable test or principle that would distinguish `legitimate' from `illegitimate' news.''

``Any attempt by the courts to draw such a distinction would imperil a fundamental purpose of the First Amendment,'' the justices added. ...

Eugene Volokh, a University of California-Los Angeles law professor who runs a popular law blog, said the court ``got this absolutely right.''

``This means that if a journalist receives information from a source, it doesn't matter if they publish that on a Web site or in a newspaper or they are talking about it on the radio,'' added Lauren Gelman, assistant director of Stanford Law School's Center for Internet and Society.

Adds Kos:

This is new legal territory, and courts around the country, including the feds, can and will look to this decision for guidance as similar cases arise in their jurisdictions. Coming in the heels of the FEC's decisions to grant bloggers and other internet media practicioners the media exemption, a solid body of law is being developed upholding the principles that citizen media deserves the same First Amendment protections as "professional" journalists.

Here's the PDF of the decision. Here's the EFF's reaction.

This is a hugely important victory for bloggers and grassroots media. As Eugene V. put it, the court got it exactly right. Let's hope it becomes a precedent for other jurisdictions as well. And let's hope Apple drops this ridiculous attempt to shake down amateur journalists, because the California Supreme Court would likely vote to affirm this landmark decision.