Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

Re:Police raid Gizmodo editor's house by nailer on Monday April 26, 2010 @05:39PM (#1296224)

Because there's:

- a news organization

- matters of public interest

involved?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Police raid Gizmodo editor's house by frossie on Monday April 26, 2010 @05:55PM (#1296298)

Are the specs of the 4th iPhone truly a matter of public interest? Interest != curiosity in this context. If a journalist has a source that says a state governor is selling senate appointments, that is in the public interest because the public has an interest (is a stakeholder) in clean government. If a journalist gets a stolen toddler toy that turns out to be covered in lead paint, the public has an interest in (is entitled to) knowing not to buy the toy.

The iPhone will come out in July (or whenever) irrespective of you knowing two months in advance its specs. Nothing changes. Nothing will be hidden. There is no "public interest". It's just idle curiosity, and it's not journalism to pander to it to the extent of participating in a very dodgy transaction.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Police raid Gizmodo editor's house by nailer on Monday April 26, 2010 @06:33PM (#1296420)

Courts around the world have ruled that the sex lives of celebrities is in the public interest.

I personally don't agree with this, and you may not either, but that doesn't matter.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Police raid Gizmodo editor's house by frossie on Monday April 26, 2010 @07:48PM (#1296646)

Courts around the world have ruled that the sex lives of celebrities is in the public interest.

Reference? The ones I have been aware of have been very narrow, and there have been many public cases of the opposite (such as the recent Max Mosley case in the UK).

Generally the law seems to take a line similar to that of Wikipedia - that "public interest" means "general welfare". Note that this does not mean you can't publish details about the sex lives of celebrities, but you can't use public interest as a defense if you have participated in a crime to do so.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Police raid Gizmodo editor's house by anigbrowl on Monday April 26, 2010 @06:05PM (#1296333)

'Public interest' is a slippery term. Certainly the public is interested in smartphones, or there would be no audience for the story. But does the public have an interest in the intellectual property of manufacturers? Only in the most tenuous sense - state or federal workers' pension funds might be partially invested in Apple's stock, for example.

But it would be hard to argue that this story was presented with the aim of improving the public welfare, as you might if the contents of some confidential government documents were reported or publicized.

[ Parent | on HN ]