Well put. Right on every point. Absolutely the clearest and most logical analyses of the case I've ever read.

This of course means that you'll get flamed like Torquemada's houseguest.

Excellent with a touch of wit. Now I remember why I missed your writing so need to apologize, dude.

Oh, and it's excellent because I agree with your every point.

And congratulations on becoming a father.

For the record, I am not taking sides on the issue. However, this article is FULL of factual errors, and makes the writer look like a complete idiot. He goes on and on trying to argue about freedom of speech, except the whole crux of this argument has NOTHING to do with freedom of speech. Let me repeat that. The argument the lawyers are using is NOT freedom of speech. What the argument IS about, is the fact that many states have journalistic shield laws, which specifically protect journalists from being forced to identify their sources. Apple's headquarter state of California is one such state. So, the argument as to whether a rumor website constitutes journalism is in fact a very important one, and not irrelevant as the clueless author claimed.

Oh, and in case you didn't notice... you aren't allowed to yell fire in a crowded MOVIE THEATER. Yell fire in a crowded fire house? WTF?

Back in high-school, I used to enjoy yelling "Theatre!" during Fire Drills. Some people got it...

In this case, the "crux" as you put it, is whether the California's "Shield Law", which protects journalists, trumps California's "Trade Secret" law.

And, in my opinion, it doesn't.

Oh boy I remember trying to keep up with you and Randy back in the early TMO days. I tend towards wine these days, though. Guess I'm getting mellow in my old age.

"What the argument IS about, is the fact that many states have journalistic shield laws, which specifically protect journalists from being forced to identify their sources."

Bull. Read the court's decision. Which is:
"10 11 12 13 14 15 E. The Shield Law Easily overstated in its power, “[t]he description ‘shield law’ conjures up visions of broad protection and sweeping privilege. The California shield law, however, is unique in that it affords only limited protection. It does not create a privilege for newspeople, rather it provides an immunity from being adjudged in contempt. This rather basic distinction has been misstated and apparently misunderstood by members of the news media and our courts as well.” KSDO v. Superior Court, (1982) 136 Cal. App. 3de 375, 379-80. "

The judge further states:
"2 3 4 Based on that language and the facts presented, it is far from clear that Mr. O’Grady qualifies for relief from the subpoena on the grounds advanced.7 Whether he fits the definition of a journalist, reporter, blogger, or anything else need not be decided at this juncture for this fundamental reason: there is no license conferred on anyone to violate valid criminal laws."

Got it?

Great job! I would amend your analogy of your buddy robbing the Scarf 'n Spew:

What if you not only had knowledge of your buddy doing the pilfering but you constantly stood outside the Scarf 'n Spew and asked your buddy who worked at said establishment to bring you the goods every day. You then made a business of fencing the goods you asked him to steal at your store for profit. You continue this practice for years while the Scarf 'n Spew asks you to stop and asks you who keeps giving you the stolen goods. Of course you say that you like the Scarf 'n Spew and think this is all good for their business to (barf!).

That's more like what is going on. These web rumor sites are actively encouraging the breaking of Apple's NDAs and then profiting from the pusblished information by way of eyeballs and ad sales.

Quote

Guest wrote:
Oh, and in case you didn't notice... you aren't allowed to yell fire in a crowded MOVIE THEATER. Yell fire in a crowded fire house? WTF?

but the fact that referenced Steve Martin has made my day

Unfortunately, you are missing the two critical, core isues - first, it is illegal for Jason O'Grady's ISP to turn his e-mail over to Apple; second, O'Grady, ThinkSecret etc. are protected under the journalist shield which is part of the California constitution.

Even if a source violated an NDA, that doesn't trump the constitutional protection.

Of course, in addition to the compelling legal arguments, perhaps you remember the old MacWeek, which published precisely the information in the 90's that ThinkSecret publishes today. Would you have tried to shut down MacWeek as well?

Quote

Guest wrote:

Even if a source violated an NDA, that doesn't trump the constitutional protection.

Quote

Guest wrote:
Of course, in addition to the compelling legal arguments, perhaps you remember the old MacWeek, which published precisely the information in the 90's that ThinkSecret publishes today. Would you have tried to shut down MacWeek as well?

Ooops, I forgot to log in. I may be proving those of you right who believe I am an idiot.

It has been pointed out to me that the following sentence could be confusing:

"Their so-called sources are in violation of a non-diclosure agreement (NDA) with Apple; that makes them guilty of breach of contract."

It should read:

"Their so-called sources are in violation of a non-diclosure agreement (NDA) with Apple; that makes the sources guilty of breach of contract."

Apologies for any confusion.

Gary

Quote

Anonymous wrote:

Quote

Guest wrote:
Oh, and in case you didn't notice... you aren't allowed to yell fire in a crowded MOVIE THEATER. Yell fire in a crowded fire house? WTF?

You kinda lost a whole bunch of credibility by
1. misquoting the article
2. showing your lack of understanding and lack of sense of humor (Do you know who Steve Martin is?)

Engine Joe is right. I made a typo. That and the above clarification will soon be corrected.

Gary

Scarf & Spew - I'm stealing that

Quote

Guest wrote:
Scarf & Spew - I'm stealing that

Yell fire in a crowded fire house? WTF?[/quote]
This just proves how well you read and understood the article …
Before calling people names, try understanding their point. If this idiot is one, you probably think the same thing of the judge who made a clear point in his decision that the journalistic status has nothing to do with the matter. This is a pure case of Trade Secrets law …
So, why don't you just go back to your room and do your homework …

Quote

geoduck wrote:
Well put. Right on every point. Absolutely the clearest and most logical analyses of the case I've ever read.

This of course means that you'll get flamed like Torquemada's houseguest.

As a non-US citizen I find this idea of protecting journalistic sources at all costs, as many on the side of these rumor sites seem to be advocating, totally bizarre. The logic seems to be that it is more important to do this than it is to hold these sources accountable for what is arguably illegal activity. Come on people, get a grip, use your imagination and see just where that position could potentially lead...

This case is not an instance of "in the public interest" so the sources should be made to answer for any illegal activity they may have committed. The websites, in preventing, this are aiding and abetting a possible crime. I think Apple has been remarkably restrained in not seeking criminal action against them as well and is just after the sources' names.

One final thought, if this were not a case of a large corporate vs small web sites but a case of an injured individual vs small web sites I bet we wouldn't be hearing the same outcry.

...an article about what the First Amendment is really all about. None of our rights are absolute. People are always throwing out the blanket "first amendment rights" whenever there's a case similar to this. Sometimes it's valid, sometimes not. In this case, I'll have to agree with Gary. Whether the webmasters in question posted the information on a public website, or went and told a buddy in the Microsoft Software Engineering department, it's still a violation.

In any case, the courts will decide...

Hey Gary,

I tend to agree with you that the law would/should not protect those who journalize by printing material that only could've only been obtained through illegal means. There is a well written article by Matt Welch in reason magazine who takes the opposite POV. You might check it out at your local bookstore, because I can't find it online.

Jason

I would like to give kudos to Bryan Chaffin, my esteemed editor, for publishing a piece that not only might he disagree with, but could also be construed as antagonistic to his business. This is why I choose to write for TMO.

He promises a rebuttal. Remind him that you would like to read it.

Then politely point out that I am right.

Thanks again, Bryan