Comments on: Tentative ruling favors Apple in blog case

California judge issues a tentative ruling that would force three blogging sites to divulge their sources to Apple.

[NWLB]

Not shocked.

If people post information that damanges a company or person, true or not, they are going to be held responsible for it.

A New Jersey court did note that owners of web sites, which people post information on, are not responsible, but that isn't what happened here.

Combine this with the news yesterday about the FEC looking into blogs, and it looks like 2005 will be a banner year for courts, congress, and the media poking into blogs.

NWLB
****
http://www.nwlbnet.blogspot.com

[Bill Dautrive]

Indeed

Corporate profits is more important the the first amendment, right?

You are scary.

This is complete bull

journalists are supposed to be able to do their jobs without fear of big brother comming down on them

that's what the first amendment is for, it doesnt matter what they reported as long as it's true

there are laws in place called Sheild Laws that protect journalists from having to divulge their sources of information
like Deep Throat and the whole Watergate scandal
people still dont know who the source of that information is, and there is a good reason for it.

it would be like if a company was producing bad meat and one of the employee's who was bound by a contract not to say anything decided to speak to the press, he could do it with sheild laws in place without fear of losing his job

what is happening here is a travesty against the american people

[David Arbogast]

Lesson to Learn

I agree. But it is quite clear to me, and should be to most people that...

BLOGGER != JOURNALIST

[unknown unknown]

It will probably be appealed(no text)

<EOM>

[tubedogg]

Nice try but...

...none of the sites involved are blogs. They are rumor news
sites; they are nearly identical to News.com in that they have
headlines and blurbs on the front page, and allow comments.
(And have far too much advertising.)

[wwhit710]

Get Real

This is no travesty. Difference in your examples to this case is that of public well-being. This is not reporting, it is the intentional distribution of company secrets. A Company needs to have the right to determine who has stolen their confidential information, otherwise ALL information will soon be public knowledge. Unless you are communist this is not where you want to go.

Please...

Please pull your head out of your hind end and take a breath of fresh air for once. What these people did is post rumors and interesting tidbits of information just like almost every other checkstand tabloid.

Robert