So Apple wins in the first court go-around, eh? Asinine. Just plain stupid.
Uh, last time I checked, it was the responsibility of a company to protect trade secrets, not the legislature. In my opinion, Apple should not have the right to acquire the BLOGGER'S Trade Secrets (sources) in order to punish someone for their lack of ability to keep THEIR trade secrets.
This would be like saying if someone stole my stereo and you knew who did it (even though YOU'RE not the one who stole it), I can steal your stereo just so I can punish those who stole my stereo.
Trade Secrets are property, the courts have backed that time and time again. By forcing the bloggers to reveal their sources, they're stealing the blogger's property, because they won't be able to use that source again.
And I'm not even getting into the whole 1st Amendment Rights thing yet. In case you're a little fuzzy on this:
"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."
hmm. As far as I can tell, we take two whacks on the 1st Amendment here. The internet is a medium. A publishing medium. It's intent is to make information available to be read. That sounds like the press to me. Okay, so for the sake of argument, let's just assume that "bloggers" aren't journalists. They're just people like you and me.
So, freedom of speech. Yes, I know. Freedom of speech only applies as long as I am not infringing on the rights of someone else. Inciting a riot is an example. I'm not free to rouse a rabble for the purposes of killing someone. (Dang, no Posse for me!) Other than that, I'm free to say whatever I want, or NOT say whatever I want. It is legal for me to say (by the way, this is not true. Nobody told me this, and I'm making it up to prove a point. She could be, but I have no reason to believe it...) "I don't know if it's true, but someone told me that Susie Rottencrotch down the road is actually a lesbian." It is also legal for me to say "No, I won't tell you who told me that!"
That's legal. In no way am I infringing on anyone's rights. That's been proven. It's not libel. It's not slander. It is reporting of fact. Someone told me. That is the only fact claimed in that statement.
Apparently though, YOUR $$ is more important than my freedom of speech and MY $$, because you have more $$.
Just freaking idiotic. We live in a Democratic Republic. Do you know WHY it's a Democratic Republic and NOT a Democracy? Because Ben Franklin and friends wanted to make sure that nobody can take away your rights. In a Democracy, if 50.00001% of the population decided that you could be put into slavery again, they would win. Mob rules. In a Democratic Republic, you have RIGHTS, which NOBODY can take away. The first one of those rights, enumerated in the Bill of Rights, (cool how that all knits together, isn't it? It's not a coincidence) says that I can speak my mind, as long as it doesn't infringe on anyone elses rights. And it doesn't matter is 99.999999999999% of the population disagrees with what I have to say. It is my RIGHT to do that.
Just my two cents. What do you think? Write a comment below.