News 

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), hailed the latest ruling as a 'huge win for online journalism' in a case that has questioned the status of websites and their right to pass on leaked, confidential product details ahead of product launches.

A California state appeals court, at the end of last week, ruled in favour of the EFF's petition on behalf of three online journalists involved in the case.

'Today's decision is a victory for the rights of journalists, whether online or offline, and for the public at large,' said EFF Staff Attorney Kurt Opsahl, who had argued the case before the appeals court. 'The court has upheld the strong protections for the free flow of information to the press, and from the press to the public.'

In their decision the judges side-stepped the issue of whether the websites were respected sources of news information, such as traditional broadcast media. They wrote: 'We can think of no workable test or principle that would distinguish "legitimate" from "illegitimate" news. Any attempt by courts to draw such a distinction would imperil a fundamental purpose of the First Amendment, which is to identify the best, most important, and most valuable ideas not by any sociological or economic formula, rule of law,

ADVERTISEMENT

or process of government, but through the rough and tumble competition of the memetic marketplace.'

Essentially, the ruling grants online journalists the same rights to protect the confidentiality of sources as their offline equivalents.

'In addition to being a free speech victory for every citizen reporter who uses the Internet to distribute news, today's decision is a profound electronic privacy victory for everyone who uses email,' said EFF Staff Attorney Kevin Bankston. 'The court correctly found that under federal law, civil litigants can't subpoena your stored email from your service provider.'

Apple Computer sued unnamed individuals, called 'John Does', who had allegedly leaked the inside information. Apple also subpoenaed Nfox - PowerPage's email service provider - to gain access to information received by PowerPage publisher Jason O'Grady. This subpoena was upheld by a trial court.

Apple got the legal green light to pursue the sites in March 2005, but the case dated back to November 2004, with Apple bidding to identify the leak

In 2005, Judge James Kleinberg of Santa Clara County Court, California had originally dismissed the PowerPage website's attempt to win a protective order that would prevent Apple from subpoenaing PowerPage's email provider for its records.

'Reporters and their sources do not have a licence to violate criminal laws.... The journalist's privilege is not absolute,' he said, adding, 'The preference for anonymity of those confidential informants involved in actual criminal conduct is presumably a product of their desire to escape criminal prosecution and this preference, while understandable, is hardly deserving of constitutional protection.'

The EFF is hosting a PDF of the full decision in the case here.