[split] 1st amendment discussion

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by gwangung, Feb 14, 2005.

  1. gwangung macrumors 65816

    Apr 9, 2003
    What makes you think that the First Amendment's protections are that extensive?
  2. iBook macrumors regular

    May 3, 2004
    On a tugboat
    What's sad are the people who rated this story as negative. :(

    If they're such staunch opponents of the freedom of speech, why are they visting a rumors site? :eek:
  3. iBook macrumors regular

    May 3, 2004
    On a tugboat
    Read it for yourself. It is a thing of beauty.

  4. zwida macrumors 6502a


    Jan 5, 2001
    The First Amendment does not speak to the form of the press that is protected. There is no reason to think that electronic news sites are not protected. Had the NYT revealed the same info, Apple would have come after them just the same, and Apple would have lost. Unless Apple can demonstrate that Think Secret somehow compelled the "leakers" to divulge trade secrets, they're pretty unlikely to succeed.

    Of course, if their intent is simply to "chill" future speach (leaks), this series of lawsuits will likely succeed to some extent.
  5. photoman macrumors newbie

    Jan 30, 2005
    I don't even understand how apple can even began to present a case aganist the Think secret guy. Unless he has indeed signed a developer NDA which seems to apply even if you did not get the information about apple from Apple directly. If he has not... he's a student somewhere in the US I think. Apple is trying to say that it's little secrets are more important than the simple right of freedom of speech.

    For those saying how can this be so extensive. The constituion was'nt written for the amount of interpretation it has been subject to. Our rights are there and they are simple there. Aka I can say what ever I want to say about anybody. Period. In any form written verbal or physical. The goverment has no control over that.

    As for Apple's NDA I seem to recall a court case.... Dartmouht College v. Woodward in 1819 that concluced that the schools orginal contract (Like Apple's NDA) which was formed with George the III in 1769, was a contract and therefore stood above the Constitution. Which indeed forbade states and other parties of the goverment from interfering with contracts.

    So if he signed the NDA he's done. Apple will eat him alive... if not Apple is trying to put him out by makeing him spend money on a lawyer. :eek:
  6. dejo Moderator


    Staff Member

    Sep 2, 2004
    The Centennial State
    How can NDAs exist if they appear to be unconstitutional according to the first amendment? Wouldn't the freedom of speech overrule any NDA?
  7. Gump macrumors member


    Feb 14, 2005
    Libel and Slander are not protected by the First Amendment.

    Libel would be more specific in this case since this is written material for the most part on websites hosted within the U.S.A.

    Libel does not only include the ruining of one's reputation, but also includes harm imposed through print - and if Apple can show how published materials affected them financially or any other means, namely showing the 'damages' caused by this 'libel', then what the websites have printed ahead of time (ThinkSecret, for example) do not enjoy any First Amendment protection for 'freedom of speech' because that would not protect libel that caused damage (or broke law).
  8. Sun Baked macrumors G5

    Sun Baked

    May 19, 2002
    The Boston Globe just lost a $2 million defamation case last week...

    But that's why real news outlets pay hefty insurance premiums, since they cannot always hide behind the 1st Amendment.

    Basically they cannot be stopped from publishing it, but once they do -- the victims can take anylegal remedy available to them.

    Of course a lot of papers and/or people have also tried asking money to keep sensitive news out of the papers and make a quick buck -- seems more and more of these people and their lawyers are being arrested for extortion. Which gets around the 1st Amendment issue quite nicely also.
  9. Sayhey macrumors 68000


    May 22, 2003
    San Francisco
    If ThinkSecret put out rumors of Steve Jobs and sheep or said Apple products fall apart when exposed to sunlight, they would not be protected by the First Amendment. Putting out tips about future products possibilities are clearly not covered under the libel and slander exceptions.
  10. jelloshotsrule macrumors G3


    Feb 7, 2002
    if reporters like robert novak are protected when they out cia agents, a matter of national security, etc, then i'd hope that a reporter of some tech info before it's announced would also be covered. this assumes they obtained the information "legally" (no bribery, etc).
  11. Joined:
    Jun 5, 2004
    That's not entirely true. There are limitations to your highly valued freedom of speech. Such as libel/malice and clear and present danger.
  12. mainstreetmark macrumors 68020


    May 7, 2003
    Saint Augustine, FL
    Come on guys!

    Freedom of Speech shouldn't protect those who cause harm to another person or entity? Slander and Libel are (usually) not protected under Free Speech for this same reason.

    Some of these inside secrets SHOULD be illegal to obtain and disclose. What if Exposé had been leaked in such a way that someone could grab the idea and implement something very similar and get it to market quicker? What if Winplosion had gotten a 6 month head start? ...or there was a Mac version before Panther?

    It was one of Panther's larger wow-factor selling points, and getting (or BEING) an employee who is unethically violating his confidentiallity (or employment) agreement with Apple shouldn't be considered 'Free Speech'. Publishing some of these clear trade secrets *hurts* Apple, and shouldn't be considered 'Free Speech'.

    Free Speech is when we all say "Apple Rules", and "Microsoft... not so much" and no one sends us on a march to Siberia.

    Now, drawing conclusions based on a taiwanese hard drive manufacturer receiving a large order for microdrives from Apple is common enough, and fair game for the free speechers.

    Sometimes folks get over-reactive to some of these Founding-Father issues. "Separation of Church and State" doesn't mean a kid gets a suspension for praying before a meal. It means the State can't run the Church and the Church can't run the state.
  13. gwangung thread starter macrumors 65816

    Apr 9, 2003
    Um, no.
  14. phd macrumors member


    Oct 28, 2003
    Vancouver Island
    "What's sad are the people who rated this story as negative.

    If they're such staunch opponents of the freedom of speech, why are they visting a rumors site"

    I so agree wth you ;)

    Freedom of speech!

    Power to the People! :)

    Oh Yeah,,, Windoze SUCKS! :D
  15. johnnowak macrumors 6502

    Jul 24, 2003
    New York, New York
    Unless its "violence-inciting" hate speech. Or unless its construed as a threat to a group or individual. Or unless its construed as sexual harassment. Or unless its construed as giving comfort to the enemy.

    Yes, wave the flag some more. :rolleyes:
  16. desdomg macrumors member

    Dec 12, 2003
    p.s. Talking of free speech I see MacRumours automatically censors my frigging swear words!
  17. rdowns macrumors Penryn


    Jul 11, 2003
    I hope your use of the past tense was merely an error.
  18. Les Kern macrumors 68040

    Les Kern

    Apr 26, 2002
    That hasn't been closed, that case.
    Oh, and Novak is a shill.
  19. ZipZilla macrumors regular

    Dec 7, 2003
    Of course, it should be noted that the words "separation of church and state" appear nowhere in the United States Constitution.
  20. fixyourthinking macrumors 6502a


    Oct 24, 2002
    Greenville SC
    Separation of Church & State and Freedom Of Speech bastardized

    Very correct. In fact, it specifically says that lawmakers CAN NOT abridge the free exercise thereof. Meaning they can't have 10 commandments removed BY LAW from public places. The placing of such doesn't establish a religion - it merely indicates that the laws of this country were based on laws that "our creator" (which IS in the constitution) set forward for us.

    Same with "Right to Freedom Of Speech". It doesn't say THAT either. It says Congress can't make a law restricting you - it doesn't say you are not responsible for what you say and you can report whatever you want. It also doesn't say that visual art is speech either - but that's a whole new argument.

    And as a note, can we stop using similie and metaphor here - these are NOT - trade secrets - they are business plans, they are actual schematics, they are property. Some of us are trying to take meaning out of the words trade secrets like it's just a few words. This actual documentation that people hold that is privately OWNED information important to a business's success vs it's competitors.

    FROM THIS POINT ON - you can be assured that rumor sites will be getting VERY close looks from the competition. In fact, I would be amazed if Creative didn't have a special position at the company now to find out future iPod information so they can beat Apple to market.
  21. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Dec 21, 2002
    Yahooville S.C.
    I agree. All this did was give them free publicity for a new product that contains old parts. The Mini is a beautiful little machine but doesnt warrant spy vs spy behavior. Apple should be thrilled at the excitement over another new product not concentrating how someone leaked the info a week or so before the announcement. This is the year 2005 not 1984 Apple corp. Chill out and go with the flow. :p
  22. jelloshotsrule macrumors G3


    Feb 7, 2002
    educate me then, great one
  23. maelstromr macrumors 6502


    Aug 8, 2002
    Charlottesville, VA
  24. gwangung thread starter macrumors 65816

    Apr 9, 2003
    Two words: Trade secrets.

    Keep on telling people, but do a little research on that topic. It's a little more expansive than people think.
  25. fatfish macrumors 6502


    May 11, 2003
    Poulton-le-Fylde, UK
    Not so sure it's that different.

    Just a couple of journalists who are being made to reveal the names of someone who has commited a crime.

    Although in this case the potential damages are somewhat different to the victim. (National security may well feature higher on a judges list of priorities than Apples profit)

    In both cases IMHO the journalists are more morally in the wrong than the source. If the source had told Joe Schmoe his information, no-one would be any the wiser and there would be very little damage done to anyone. It is the Journalists who have used that information to cause any damages. But alas the legal system isn't interested in morals, so in both cases providing the journalists hand over the information they have been asked for, they will likely walk away free men, even though yhey have caused the greater damage.

Share This Page