A federal judge in Brooklyn, N.Y., is considering whether bloggers are entitled to the same free speech protections given to reporters for newspapers and other media in a case involving leaked documents belonging to the pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly, according to National Public Radio.

Fred von Lohmann of the Electronic Freedom Foundation in San Francisco argues that the order to shut down the Web links in the case violated the protections of the first amendment. Von Lohmann’s client is an anonymous “John Doe” who posted entries on a Wikipedia Web site about the Zyprexa documents.

“Courts in the United States, thanks to the First Amendment, are not allowed to issue what are called ‘prior restraints,’ Von Lohmann said. “After all, the Pentagon Papers were also allegedly improperly obtained. And the courts have said over and over again ‘It doesn’t matter if the documents were improperly obtained. Courts do not issue stop-the-presses orders against people who happen to get the documents after they had been released.’”

Neil Richards, a professor of law at Washington University in St. Louis, says this case squarely poses the question of whether “John Doe” deserves the same protections as the established media.

“A number of people have made claims to be the press,” Richards said. “The Supreme Court, in interpreting the First Amendment, has defined the press very broadly because it doesn’t want to foreclose new types of people who are engaged in press-like activities from claiming First Amendment protection.”

Richards thinks the court will decide that “John Doe” is a full-fledged member of the press. But because the documents were released on the Web, Richards says, Judge Weinstein will also have to decide that the public interest in knowing what’s in the documents outweighs Lilly’s interest in protecting its trade secrets.

This may or may not be the best test case of free press rights for the Web Press. But it is a test case nonetheless, so the judge should decide in John Doe’s favor or all of our First Amendment free press rights are imperiled.

Tags: Net Freedom

This entry was posted on Wednesday, January 17th, 2007 at 9:11 am and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.