Jonathan Glater of the New York Times has a good article about Apple Computer’s effort to force three bloggers to reveal confidential sources.

The article quotes Eugene Volokh, who tells the Times he is “considering filing a friend-of-the-court brief in the case on the side of the bloggers, saying that the privilege should extend to them.” I hope other law bloggers will do the same.

The Times also quotes Jack Balkin, a professor at Yale Law School. Balkin proposes that journalistic privileges be extended to some bloggers but not others, based on whether the blogger regularly cultivates sources, gathers information and then organizes and presents it to the public the same way that print and television reporters do. He elaborates on his blog here.

The prospect of the government making such distinctions is unsettling. But Balkin deserves credit for coming up with a proposal that acknowledges the reality that some bloggers are engaged in journalism while others aren’t.

This bill, by contrast, explicitly excludes all blogs, online news sites, and webzines from journalistic protections, unless they are affiliated with a traditional media outlet (e.g., newspaper, magazine, radio or TV station). Thus, blogs run by James Taranto, Kevin Drum, and Eric Alterman would qualify for journalistic protections (these blogs are affiliated with traditional media outlets), but The Drudge Report, Instapundit, and CNet would not. Slate would be protected (it is owned by the Washington Post Company), but Salon would not.

Absurd.

***

Previously:

Apple vs. Bloggers, Part II
Apple vs. Bloggers

comments (0)   trackbacks (2)