In response to the California police raid on Gizmodo editor Jason Chen’s home, Gawker Media is arguing that the search and seizure was illegal because California law precludes a warrant being used to ascertain the name of a journalistic source.
Gizmodo’s interpretation of the law, however, entirely misses the point. The impetus for the warrant appears to be rooted in Gizmodo’s commission of a felony, namely the purchase of an iPhone they had reason to believe was stolen property.
Shield laws in the US were designed to protect sources, but by entering into a contract with said source (5 grand in exchange for the iPhone), Gizmodo was no longer just the recipient of information, but an active participant in the commission of a felony - hence the warrant.
Despite Giz’s arguments to the contrary, the warrant is 100% kosher.
In theory I'm against "leaks" of this kind, but I have to say it is still interesting, and great publicity for apple. Almost feel as if apple is suing to confirm that the phone is real. And the phone looks absolutely gorgeous btw!
You mean "journalist" is a term you have to qualify for? Who do we apply to? You? The governor?
Apply to? No need to apply. Get educated, as in, learn to be a bit objective when relating events, learn how news is reported. Learn that "journalism" isn't editorializing about your pet peeve or favourite product/company.
If you're running a blog, you're not a journalist by that alone. It's not enough to describe your day, what you wore, what you ate and what you happened to read in the newspaper and reacted to to be a journalist. Getting paid to write your pieces is, for example, one way of separating yourself from the rest and actually be able to call yourself a journalist.
Unless you're going for the "a person who keeps a journal" meaning, which in this context would just be odd.
Anyway, I guess if The New York Times paid $10,000 for a prototype Volt that it knew was stolen, it would be liable even if the person buying the stolen car had a Ph.D in something.
