Judge rules technology blogger has no right to shield confidential source

• Reprints

Updated: February 15, 2012 8:09AM

It’s become the legal and philosophical debate in the digital age of journalism: Does a blogger have the same legal rights as any journalist to protect an anonymous source?

Not in the case of a technology website where “confidential trade secret” information — furnished by an anonymous source — was posted weeks before the smartphone hit store shelves, Cook County Circuit Court Judge Michael R. Panter declared in a written order Friday.

That’s because the website, TechnoBuffalo.com — a mix of tech news, gadget reviews and blog posts — doesn’t qualify as a “news medium” defined by Illinois law, Panter wrote.

The judge’s order means the blogger must reveal his source, but the California-based TechnoBuffalo.com is balking and will ask the judge to revisit his decision.

“We believe this writer has the same rights as any journalist. He’s not with a newspaper or television station or a magazine, but he works for a site that provides news daily and has 1 million page views per month. We’re going to fight this,” attorney Elizabeth Bradshaw, who represents the tech website, said after the order was issued. “This is 2012 and so much of our news comes in electronic form.”

State law defines a reporter as “any person regularly engaged in the business of collecting, writing or editing news for publication through a news medium.” And a “news medium” is defined by the state as “any newspaper or other periodical issued at regular intervals whether in print or electronic format and having a general circulation.” Television and radio news outlets are also defined under the law.

The case landed in court after TechnoBuffalo.com posted information on its site about the Motorola Droid Bionic on Aug. 17, 2011, weeks before it was to be released to the public. The posting included one “image” from the packaging and an image from the “Tips and Tricks” manual for the forthcoming smartphone, the website’s attorney said. The information was attributed to “an anonymous tipster” and the website explained it “fell into our inbox late last night.”

Johns-Byrne Co., the suburban Niles-based firm which was handling the packaging and suspects one of their employees might have provided the confidential information, went to court and sought an order for phone, email and any other communication between TechnoBuffalo and anyone tied to the smartphone post from Aug. 11 to Aug. 17.

The legal proceedings are a pre-cursor to a lawsuit — and the company hints in court papers it may sue the person who released the information to the website, but can’t proceed until they know who it is, according to legal documents.

“We don’t believe there is a far-reaching impact on the First Amendment as our opponents do. We’re operating on behalf of our client who is the victim of theft and who is seeking to protect its client” Motorola, said David Eisenberg, attorney for Johns-Byrne.

The judge in this case cites an Illinois Supreme Court rule in allowing the company to track down the identity of the source if, as the rule states, it’s “for the sole purpose of ascertaining the identity of one who may be responsible in damages.”

While TechnoBuffalo.com has invoked the state’s shield law, the judge says reporter’s rights don’t apply in the case.

“TechnoBuffalo’s reliance on the Illinois reporter’s privilege is misplaced,” the judge wrote in his order. “This is a fast-evolving issue facing courts everywhere. The scope and variety of electronic communication is a challenge in many areas of law.”

While TechnoBuffalo’s website may have over a million viewers, it fails to show it qualifies as a “news medium” under the Illinois Act. It fails to show it is covered by the act as a newspaper or periodical in regular circulation.

The content on TechnoBuffalo’s website may inform viewers how to use certain devices or offer sneak peaks of upcoming technology, but that does not qualify the website as a “news medium” or its bloggers as “reporters,” he said, adding at one point: “TechnoBuffalo’s anonymous “tipster” is hardly an example of a “source” of investigative journalism that requires protection of the Act.”

But Jonathan Rettinger, president of the three-year-old TechnoBuffalo and the staffer who received the anonymous tip that went up on the blog told the Sun-Times: “I’m very concerned, revealing a source is a very dangerous precedent for the media.”

Don Craven, general counsel for the Illinois Press Association said: “If this same information had been published by the Sun-Times, clearly it would be subject to reporter’s privilege. And this [TechnoBuffalo] doesn’t sound like a fly-by night operation. So if it’s protected in the Sun-Times — in responsible mainstream media — why shouldn’t it be protected in a responsible blog?”