Free speech in cyberspace
p2p news / p2pnet: Media darling Apple Computer likes secrecy. CEO Steve Jobs likes to keep the company’s products shrouded in secrecy until they are unveiled at carefully scripted events. But Apple’s zeal for secrecy is matched only by its customers’ appetite for the latest Apple rumors. Mac fans flock to websites like AppleInsider and Think Secret seeking details of upcoming Apple gadgets.
In January, 2005, Apple escalated its ongoing battle with the rumor sites when it filed a lawsuit against Think Secret for printing rumors about its Mac Mini computer. The lawsuit has been widely reported in the media, who claim that it raises new issues about the limits of free speech in cyberspace. As the Financial Times put it, “Blogs have so far operated mostly outside the law, legal experts say. Now Apple, the alternative computer maker, has decided to test the freedom of the blogosphere by suing the operator of one of the company’s most influential fan sites.”
Yet upon closer examination, it’s hard to see what the fuss is about. If anything, the incident reveals more about mainstream journalists’ condescending attitude toward their upstart online competitors than it does about law or technology.
Think Secret is not a “blog.” It is a commercial, advertisement-supported online magazine. It’s run by a college student, and is therefore smaller and less polished than online magazines like Slate or Salon. But the First Amendment’s protections aren’t limited to slick publications with large staffs. Some of the Founding Fathers, after all, were prolific pamphleteers, hardly more polished than Think Secret.
It’s not obvious, then, how this case presents novel legal questions. Apple argues that because its employees are required to sign non-disclosure agreements, Think Secret must have obtained its rumors in violation of contractual obligations. Apple’s lawyers, however, would do well to review the famous Pentagon Papers decision.
In 1971, The New York Times published excerpts from a classified report on the progress of the Vietnam war. The Nixon administration sued, asking for an injunction against publishing further excerpts. In a 5-4 decision, the high court ruled for the Times, holding that as long as the Times had not itself broken the law in obtaining the documents, it could not be prevented from publishing them unless their publication posed an imminent threat to national security.
Steve Jobs might disagree, but it seems clear that leaking news about upcoming Apple products poses a lesser threat to national security than leaking classified military reports. Clearly, if Think Secret did not itself sign a non-disclosure agreement, it can’t be censored because its sources did.
Apple also claims that Think Secret violated Apple’s trade secrets when it published the information. But that barely passes the straight face test. Not every piece of information can be declared a trade secret; they must have commercial value to the holder of the secret or its competitors. Had Think Secret published schematics or internal Apple documents detailing logistical or technical details of new products, they would have had a credible case. But mere rumors about the features, appearance, and price of an upcoming product do no appreciable damage to Apple’s bottom line and are too vague to be of any use to competitors.
In truth, the only thing that is novel about the case is the suggestion that online journalists should receive weaker First Amendment protections than their print colleagues. As more and more people turn to the Internet for their news and information, it is vital that online journalists not become second-class citizens. In the American legal system, at least, to enjoy a robust right to free speech is not to operate “outside the law,” as the Financial Times put it. We can only hope that the Financial Times’ cavalier attitude toward censorship of online journalists reflects an ignorance of American law rather than a broader desire among print journalists to make their online colleagues second-class citizens.
[Lee is a policy analyst at the
Institute and a regular contributor to the
This article originally appeared in
p2pnet newsfeeds for your site.
rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss
Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
NOTE: p2pnet is being sued by Sharman Networks and Nikki Hemming, ceo of p2p application Kazaa. “The suit is a little odd, since P2PNet.net is a champion of peer-to-peer file-sharing, which is the same business that Kazaa is in,” says The Globe & Mail. If you’d like to help p2pnet, or find out more, please go here.
June 1st, 2006 at 9:36 am
No way! The publisher of this site deletes posts he doesn’t like? That means he only leaves up what he wants, that’s way more than a content filter (even if you discount the fact the site belongs to him, is operated by him, he profits from it and all the other inconvenient contradictions)
June 1st, 2006 at 2:00 pm
-= Disclaimer: This is just my opinion. =-
- As such I’m NOT suggesting any comment -
- following this preface is true. In fact -
- I live in a fairy-tale and nothing I -
- say should be taken seriously. -
And wealthy coporations can use the threat of financial ruin to
force jon to remove speech that they don’t like
That’s perfectly ok with you ?
Anyone who wants to know the situation can …
Start here ..
http://s5.quicksharing.com/v/4797947/P2Pnetsuit.zip.html
I checked this link out.
It is a free file host site.
The zip file contains a PDF of the court papers.
Next,
Find the line items.
They are NOT available on this site any more, but Google is
magic, is it not ?
June 1st, 2006 at 2:01 pm
-= Disclaimer: This is just my opinion. =-
- As such I’m NOT suggesting any comment -
- following this preface is true. In fact -
- I live in a fairy-tale and nothing I -
- say should be taken seriously. -
Anyone who wants to know the situation can …
Start here ..
http://s5.quicksharing.com/v/4797947/P2Pnetsuit.zip.html
I checked this link out.
It is a free file host site.
The zip file contains a PDF of the court papers.
Next,
Find the line items.
They are NOT available on this site any more, but Google is
magic, is it not ?
-= This is a stock response to our pet troll =-
-= Since it repeats the same drivel =-
-= It deserves nothing more =-
June 1st, 2006 at 8:26 pm
most of us are getting really tired of you posting the same old junk over and over- don’t you have anything better to do with your time. Looks like you are using this forum to continuously post your same response – take a break! HOG!
June 2nd, 2006 at 1:15 pm
Yup the trolls constant hate speech against this site is getting real
old. Now it’s getting weird whent it answers itsellf trying to look like
different people.
June 2nd, 2006 at 3:01 pm
I wonder, what about free speech at the bar. Anyone who has frequented bars will know what I am talking about:
a. Liquir looses the tongue and confuses the mind. Friendly, common, name calling and acusations become blurred. Because of the liquor many things are said that would otherwise be not said.
b. Those at the bar are likely from the neighborhood and know the neighbors. Acusation really hurt. Nasty things are said about those present and those not present that are personally known to those speaking and listening.
Does anyone know of a case of a defamation lawsuit for what was said at a bar? Brawls yes, lawsuits no.
Why is defamation at cyberspace important but no one gets sued for defaming at a bar?
Is it that there is a presumption of free speech at the bar or if one is under the influence of alcohol? Or it it that there is a presumption that cyberspace owners are moneyed?
Or it it because cyberpace is in writing and leaves a document trail and no witnesses are required? Yes, that it. Solution: make writing illegal. Go back to making your acusations and name calling at the bar and on the radio. The good old days when speech was speech and was thus free!