In Apple case, court says bloggers' sources not protected

The SJ Mercury News reports:

In a case with implications for the freedom to blog, a San Jose judge tentatively ruled Thursday that Apple Computer can force three online publishers to surrender the names of confidential sources who disclosed information about the company's upcoming products. Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge James Kleinberg refused to extend to the Web sites a protection that shields journalists from revealing the names of unidentified sources or turning over unpublished material.

Link (thanks, Isaac B2)

BoingBoing reader Mark Palmberg says:

The ruling here doesn't cast the pall you might think over the blogging community. Consider that all Apple is after from ThinkSecret is the name of the person who broke his or her NDA with the company. Apple doesn't even want damages from ThinkSecret.

Compare the case to the Watergate scandal. That was all about reporters protecting sources in the pursuit of making news that would contribute to the public good. In the ThinkSecret case, and as this judge has correctly ruled, the issue does not concern the public good, but rather Apple's ability to compete in their market. The issue of journalistic protection to which you allude in the bOING bOING post does not apply to Apple's case against ThinkSecret, though this will make for an interesting footnote in the annals of blogging's ascension (decline?) into the arena of "real" journalism.

Reader Eric Seppanen counters:

I am disturbed by the reader comment you added to the recent boingboing.net article about Apple going to court to unveil anonymous sources. The comment seems awfully cavalier about the importance of anonymous sources to journalism. The fact is, such a lawsuit would never fly if applied to old-fashioned print media, and Mr. Palmberg seems to bend over backwards to defend Apple.

Excusing this behavior by saying they're only after the sources and don't seek damages from the journalist is pointless, because the first amendment would prevent such a thing. It's like saying, "but I only shot him in the leg. At least I didn't shoot him in the head." Shielding sources from powerful interests has always been viewed as an important first amendment goal.

Of course there are different levels of "public good." But the law doesn't think that way, and that's the whole point. Whether it's the New York Times or the National Enquirer, courts are supposed to be prevented from interfering in the practice of a free press.