The blogger known as Dr. Teeth and the Electric Mayhem may never rival Bob Woodward in recognition or prestige. But thanks to a recent court ruling, when it comes to their legal right to protect the confidentiality of their sources, Dr. Teeth and Mr. Woodward are now on equal footing — at least in the state of California.
To wit: This past Friday, an appeals court in San Jose ruled that the state’s current shield law for reporters applies not only to professional journalists working in print, radio, or television but also to amateur journalists working online, including bloggers.
“In a decision that could set the tone for journalism in the digital age, a California appeals court ruled Friday that bloggers, like traditional reporters, have the right to keep their sources confidential,” reported the San Francisco Chronicle.
The case in question pitted Apple Computer lawyers versus Apple Computer bloggers. Apple filed the case in the fall of 2004 after various bloggers (the aforementioned Dr. Teeth among them) published stories about a music-recording product that Apple was supposedly in the process of developing. The stories, which the bloggers posted on a range of Web sites, including Thinksecret.com, Appleinsider.com, and Powerpage.org, were apparently based on information leaked by a source (or perhaps multiple sources) at Apple.
Shortly thereafter, Apple accused the bloggers of illegally publishing trade secrets and obtained a subpoena requiring the bloggers’ Internet service providers to turn over their email communications — information that would, in all likelihood, shed light on the source of the leak.
The bloggers, in turn, resisted, setting up a legal showdown — the outcome of which, as we noted at the time, would hinge in part on the court’s interpretation of the First Amendment rights of bloggers.
A judge ruled in March of last year that the bloggers were indeed required to turn over the requested information — although, as we subsequently noted, the judge’s decision focused almost exclusively on trade secret law and all but ignored the broader issue of bloggers’ legal status as journalists.
Thus Friday’s ruling, which overturned the lower court’s decision and found that bloggers were entitled to the same legal protections as all other journalists, could be a landmark moment in the history of online journalism — one that sets a powerful precedent for the recognition of bloggers as legitimate members of the Fourth Estate.
By ruling that it is the practice of journalism that is protected, regardless of whether the journalist is employed by a professional news organization or what format that journalism might appear in, the court has recognized the changing nature of news.
And that bodes well for the Deep Throats and Dr. Teeth of the digital age.
Felix Gillette writes about the media for The New York Observer.