California has very strong shield laws protecting journalists from being compelled to reveal sources. It even enjoys constitutional protection. That the information revealed was a trade secret is irrelavent to that law. That there was no overriding public need to know is irrelavent to that law. Let me quote you from the California constitution:
Article I, Section 2(b): A publisher, editor, reporter, or other person connected with or employed upon a newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication, or by a press association or wire service, or any person who has been so connected or employed, shall not be adjudged in contempt by a judicial, legislative, or administrative body, or any other body having the power to issue subpoenas, for refusing to disclose the source of any information procured while so connected or employed for publication in a newspaper, magazine or other periodical publication, or for refusing to disclose any unpublished information obtained or prepared in gathering, receiving or processing of information for communication to the public. Nor shall a radio or television news reporter or other person connected with or employed by a radio or television station, or any person who has been so connected or employed, be so adjudged in contempt for refusing to disclose the source of any information procured while so connected or employed for news or news commentary purposes on radio or television, or for refusing to disclose any unpublished information obtained or prepared in gathering, receiving or processing of information for communication to the public. As used in this subdivision, "unpublished information" includes information not disseminated to the public by the person from whom disclosure is sought, whether or not related information has been disseminated and includes, but is not limited to, all notes, outtakes, photographs, tapes or other data of whatever sort not itself disseminated to the public through a medium of communication, whether or not published information based upon or related to such material has been disseminated.
Basically, if the people in question qualify for protection under this article of the California constitution, then they are completely within their rights to refuse to reveal their sources.
The real question was: do blogs qualify as periodical publications under this article. The California judge ruled they do not. It's very clear that if the same documents had been published in a print publication that they would. That is why this is completely about online vs traditional media. The California Constitution has no concept about the quality or lack thereof of editorial support for a publication. It offers no protection to holders of trade secrets in relation to this privilige. It contains no 'public interest' test.
The law and why people are ticked...
Article I, Section 2(b):
A publisher, editor, reporter, or other person connected with
or employed upon a newspaper, magazine, or other periodical
publication, or by a press association or wire service, or any person
who has been so connected or employed, shall not be adjudged in
contempt by a judicial, legislative, or administrative body, or any
other body having the power to issue subpoenas, for refusing to
disclose the source of any information procured while so connected or
employed for publication in a newspaper, magazine or other
periodical publication, or for refusing to disclose any unpublished
information obtained or prepared in gathering, receiving or
processing of information for communication to the public.
Nor shall a radio or television news reporter or other person
connected with or employed by a radio or television station, or any
person who has been so connected or employed, be so adjudged in
contempt for refusing to disclose the source of any information
procured while so connected or employed for news or news commentary
purposes on radio or television, or for refusing to disclose any
unpublished information obtained or prepared in gathering, receiving
or processing of information for communication to the public.
As used in this subdivision, "unpublished information" includes
information not disseminated to the public by the person from whom
disclosure is sought, whether or not related information has been
disseminated and includes, but is not limited to, all notes,
outtakes, photographs, tapes or other data of whatever sort not
itself disseminated to the public through a medium of communication,
whether or not published information based upon or related to such
material has been disseminated.
Basically, if the people in question qualify for protection under this article of the California constitution, then they are completely within their rights to refuse to reveal their sources.
The real question was: do blogs qualify as periodical publications under this article. The California judge ruled they do not. It's very clear that if the same documents had been published in a print publication that they would. That is why this is completely about online vs traditional media. The California Constitution has no concept about the quality or lack thereof of editorial support for a publication. It offers no protection to holders of trade secrets in relation to this privilige. It contains no 'public interest' test.