"Defining what is a 'journalist' has become more complicated as the variety of media has expanded. But even if the movants are journalists, this is not the equivalent of a free pass. The journalist?s privilege is not absolute. For example, journalists cannot refuse to disclose information when it relates to a crime," wrote Judge Kleinberg.
He also opined that the movants failed to justify the public?s right to know Apple?s "private and secret information."
"Unlike the whistleblower who discloses a health, safety, or welfare hazard affecting all, or the government employee who reveals mismanagement or worse by our public officials, the movants are doing nothing more than feeding the public?s insatiable desire for information," he added.
From Robert Niles on March 12, 2005 at 10:51 AM
And just what is wrong with feeding the public's desire for information?The big story here is that the judge never bothered with the question of whether online writers are journalists. Instead, the judge ruled that no journalist has the right to withhold the identity of an anonymous source from a court if that source is suspected of breaking the law.
If upheld, this is a chilling ruling for press freedom in California -- online or off. Couple this ruling with California's trade secrets act, and anyone who runs a business has a new tool to force reporters to "out" whistleblowers.