¿Puede un bloguero acogerse frente a un juez al privilegio de los periodistas y medios de comunicación tradicionales a no revelar la identidad de la fuente de una historia-información-comentario publicado en su página personal? La respuesta, al menos en Estados Unidos, es sí. Por eso, todo bloguero debería leerse (y guardar en su disco duro) esta sentencia (PDF de 69 páginas) de primeros de junio del Tribunal de Apelación de San José (California).
Hace dos años, Apple pidió amparo a la justicia para lograr la identidad de un empleado que facilitó información a un bloguero sobre su producto Asteroid. Apple argumentaba proteger sus secretos industriales de la competencia y que un bloguero no podían considerarse periodista.
La primera sentencia dio la razón a Apple. Pero los blogueros, representados por la organización de derechos digitales Electronic Free Foundation (EFF) --lee aquí lo que piensan de la victoria lograda-- recurrieron y el nuevo fallo concluye que los blogueros (y los webmaster) pueden acogerse a las leyes que protegen a los periodistas (en el caso de EEUU, la primera enmienda y la California's Shield Law).
Un gran paso para la libertad de información y expresión en la Red.
Eugene Volokh sintetiza así en su blog lo que implica esta sentencia:
The court said, among other things, that:
1. The California journalist's privilege isn't limited to printed media.
2. The privilege applies to the publication of raw data — even with little explicit editorial commentary — and not just to the reporter's own words about that data.
3. Though "periodical publication" might be read as requiring publication at fixed intervals (like the way most newspapers generally publish, but unlike the way blogs publish), in this context it simply refers to "all ongoing, recurring news publications while excluding non-recurring publications such as books, pamphlets, flyers, and monographs." (The court also noted that weblogs might also be considered "magazines," but concluded that it didn't have to resolve this because of its broad reading of "periodical publication."
4. Bloggers are also covered by the journalist's privilege that California courts (and many other courts, though not all courts) have inferred from the First Amendment. This federal privilege, unlike the state privilege, can be trumped by a showing that the confidential information is necessary and not obtainable through other means (a showing that the court found wasn't adequately made here); in this respect, the federal privilege is narrower than the state privilege, but it's also broader in other respects (for instance, it provides more protection than just immunity from contempt sanctions), so the federal privilege remains relevant in California.
5. The courts ought not limit the privilege to "legitimate" journalists, as opposed to mere bloggers (who, Apple argued, "are not members of any professional community governed by ethical and professional standards"). The court wrote, "We decline the implicit invitation to embroil ourselves in questions of what constitutes 'legitimate journalis[m].' The shield law is intended to protect the gathering and dissemination of news, and that is what petitioners did here. We can think of no workable test or principle that would distinguish 'legitimate' from 'illegitimate' news. Any attempt by courts to draw such a distinction would imperil a fundamental purpose of the First Amendment, which is to identify the best, most important, and most valuable ideas not by any sociological or economic formula, rule of law, or process of government, but through the rough and tumble competition of the memetic marketplace."
http://blogs.periodistadigital.com/24por7.php/2006/06/09/una_sentencia_de_obligada_lectura_para_t
Enviar mensaje
