It's a big win for online publishers, but Scott Rosenberg wonders where this will lead next.
Media Bloggers Association: California Appeals Court Rules Bloggers Are Journalists:
In what the EFF called a "major victory" for bloggers and citizen journalists, The Sixth Appellate Court of the Court of Appeal of the State of California rejected Apple Computer's attempt to force disclosure of sources by two blogs (AppleInsider and PowerPage.org) by ruling that bloggers and citizen journalists are entitled to the same legal protections as journalists working for corporate media entities. Specifically, the bloggers were entitled to protection under the California reporter's shield law.The Media Bloggers Association filed an amicus brief supporting AppleInsider and PowerPage.org with the Center for Internet & Society at Stanford University in April, 2005.
In it's unanimous ruling, Justice Conrad Rushing of the 6th District Court of Appeal wrote:
We decline the implicit invitation to embroil ourselves in questions of what constitutes "legitimate journalis[m]." The shield law is intended to protect the gathering and dissemination of news, and that is what petitioners did here. 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, or process of government, but through the rough and tumble competition of the memetic marketplace.
Scott Rosenberg, of Salon, wonders if "If everyone has the same privilege, is it still a privilege?":
This court has now declared that anyone "doing journalism" on the Net is entitled to the protections the law provides journalists. That's a great decision. But don't expect the old-school journalism establishment to cheer in unison (despite the participation of some of its members as amici curiae on behalf of the online journalists). The next phase of this discussion will inevitably include the sound of hand-wringing: Where do we draw the line? If anyone publishing on the Net -- and that means almost everyone these days -- can be protected by a shield law, won't the shield laws erode?Extending a basic privilege -- the right to ask questions and publish answers -- to the broad public doesn't come without cost to someone. In this case, a lot of traditional journalists are going to fret about the erosion of their own existing privileges. Don't be surprised if there are more absurd proposals for things like "journalism certifications" and Official Journalist Membership Cards.
