(RSF/IFEX) – On 9 March 2005, RSF called for online journalists, as well as those website operators and bloggers whose work constitutes “real journalism”, to be accorded the same legal protections as journalists with the traditional press. RSF was reacting to attempts by Apple, the United States computer industry giant, to ascertain the identity of […]
(RSF/IFEX) – On 9 March 2005, RSF called for online journalists, as well as those website operators and bloggers whose work constitutes “real journalism”, to be accorded the same legal protections as journalists with the traditional press. RSF was reacting to attempts by Apple, the United States computer industry giant, to ascertain the identity of the sources used by three online publications for some of their articles about the company.
“We believe that the principle of confidentiality of sources is essential to journalism,” the organisation said. “Depriving online editors of this protection would set a dangerous precedent for freedom of expression. We call for the three websites involved in these cases to be treated exactly as news media and therefore to be able to enjoy the same rights.”
Apple accuses three online publications, http://www.Appleinsider.com, http://www.Powerpage.org and http://www.ThinkSecret.com, of revealing confidential information about some of its products. The company wants to find out if any of its employees were the source of the leaks.
On 4 January, Apple filed a lawsuit against ThinkSecret, in which it accused the publication of disclosing “trade secrets” and demanded compensation for damages incurred. The charges stem from a late December 2004 report about the Mac Mini budget computer, which appeared in the publication before the computer’s official launch.
The lawyers for Nicholas Ciarelli, the student who runs the ThinkSecret site, have invoked the recognised right of journalists to protect their sources. Since then, the debate in the press and in court has focused on the issue of whether this protection applies to a “non-professional” journalist and one who works solely for an online media.
The judge will therefore have to rule on a key point of press and Internet law, namely, whether a blogger or the editor of a personal website can enjoy the same protection as professional journalists, especially regarding the confidentiality of their sources.
As regards the other two sites, Apple is trying to get information either directly from the people who run them or by turning to their Internet access providers. In December 2004, it asked Nfox, the company that provides the Internet connection for Powerpage, to provide it with the e-mail messages received by Powerpage editor Jason O’Grady about Apple’s “Asteroid” product.
Apple then wrote directly to Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a cyber-freedom defence organisation that has been defending Powerpage and Appleinsider, to demand the same information. Under United States law, this type of request can be made in the form of a “subpoena”. If someone refuses to comply with a subpoena, a judge must decide whether or not to enforce it.
During the preparatory meeting for the World Summit on the Information Society in Geneva in February, RSF stressed the need to protect website operators and bloggers and issued five recommendations for the protection of online free expression. The final recommendation says, “Website editors, including bloggers and those who operate personal websites, must enjoy the same protection and consideration as professional journalists because, like them, they exercise a fundamental freedom, the freedom of expression.”
See the five recommendations at:
http://www.radionongrata.info/recommandations/statements_en.htm
