Gizmodo editor Jason Chen had his computers siezed by police in San Mateo County, Calif., last week, after Gizmodo published information related to Apple's latest iPhone prototype.
According to reports, Gizmodo paid $5,000 for the device, which was found after its owner (presumably an Apple employee) lost it in a bar.
Here is the New York Times version of the story.
The question that will be faced by the courts is this: Are bloggers considered to be journalists who are protected under reporter-shield laws?
This is important because I think that bloggers and other Internet writers should get the same protections as do traditional print and broadcast journalists.
Even if the medium has changed to online reporting, why should bloggers and Internet journalists be treated differently?
Shield laws, in general, are designed to protect reporters from having to reveal sources in court. See this Wikipedia link for more information.
It would appear that California's shield law covers online reporters, but the question remains as to whether or not bloggers are protected:
In an important case, O'Grady v. Superior Court, 139 Cal. App.4th 1423 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006), a California appellate court held that the shield law applies to persons gathering news for dissemination to the public, regardless of whether the publication medium is print or online. In that case, Jason O'Grady operated an "online news magazine" about Apple Computers. He published confidential information he received about a new Apple product. Apple wished to sue the person who divulged the confidential information to O'Grady and subpoenaed him for information about the identity of his confidential source. The court applied the shield law, and O'Grady did not have to identify his source.
The O'Grady case does not mean that all online publishers will benefit from the protection of the California shield law. The court indicated that the shield law protects newsgatherers, like O'Grady, who engage in "open and deliberate publication on a news-oriented Web site of news gathered by that site's operators." On the other hand, the court said the shield law might not protect "the deposit of information, opinion, or fabrication by a casual visitor to an open forum such as a newsgroup, chatroom, bulletin board service, or discussion group." The court expressly declined to decide whether the shield law applies to bloggers because of the "rapidly evolving and currently amorphous meaning" of the word "blog." Thus, the exact reach of the California shield law is unclear, but it arguably protects online publishers who gather and disseminate news to the public.
Gawker Media, which owns Gizmodo, has of course protested the seizure. Gizmodo has placed a copy of the search warrant online for perusal.
I suspect that Gawker/Gizmodo will prevail in the courts over this matter, and that the case will strengthen the California shield law to firmly cover bloggers.
Picture this: What if one of the front-pagers on Kos writes something that the law takes issue with, for whatever reason? I want these front-pagers, and anybody else posting here, to have the First Amendment protections that anybody writing in traditional media has.
I'm a former newspaper editor, and believe in a fairly strict adherence to the First Amendment.
It's short and simple, and one of the strongest things we have to remain a free society.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.