The tech blog Gizmodo says police executed search warrants in the home and car of Jason Chen, the blogger who wrote about the new iPhone prototype that was left in a California bar. Computers and other items were seized as potential evidence in a crime.
Gawker Media, which runs the blog, has requested the items be returned and argued that taking them violates California's shield law. This is the whole point of shield laws. Journalists who use secret materials for a story are, in most states, protected from being forced to reveal the identities of those who might break the law in order to get said materials. The actions of the police seem completely out of bounds given the local laws and the First Amendment ideal.
There are two differences between this case and, say, the Pentagon Papers case. One is that the publication is a blog and not the country's preeminent newspaper. This could be a test case as to whether online publications will be afforded the same protections.
The other difference is the relative importance of the two stories, at least on the surface. The Pentagon Papers described the failure of a war. The new iPhone is just a shiny new object. But these are the kinds of distinctions First Amendment advocates are loathe to make. While the relative importance of some stories might seem easy to distinguish, others exist in a gray area. Moreover, maybe it serves the public good for Apple, and its high level of secrecy, to be taken down a notch.
-- Monica Potts
