Online journalists are protected under laws that shield the confidentiality of traditional journalists' sources, ruled a California appeals court Friday in a case that pit Apple Computer against online journalists who leaked confidential company information, writes the New York Times. The court also ruled that Apple's subpoena to obtain emails from an internet service provider was not enforceable under federal law.

The appeals court ruled (pdf) that online and offline journalists are equally protected under the First Amendment. "We can think of no workable test or principle that would distinguish 'legitimate' from 'illegitimate' news," the opinion states. "Any attempt by courts to draw such a distinction would imperil a fundamental purpose of the First Amendment."

Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) Staff Attorney Kurt Opsahl, who argued the case before the appeals court last month, said in a statement that the ruling "is a victory for the rights of journalists, whether online or offline, and for the public at large." EFF had filed a petition on behalf of the three online journalists.

The case began when Apple Computer sued several unnamed individuals, called "Does," who allegedly leaked information about an upcoming product to online news sites PowerPage and AppleInsider. As part of its investigation, Apple subpoenaed Nfox - PowerPage's email service provider - for communications and unpublished materials obtained by PowerPage publisher Jason O'Grady.

"In addition to being a free speech victory for every citizen reporter who uses the internet to distribute news, today's decision is a profound electronic privacy victory for everyone who uses email," said EFF Staff Attorney Kevin Bankston. "The court correctly found that under federal law, civil litigants can't subpoena your stored email from your service provider."

Paul Ryan on Ars Technica provides a comprehensive summary of the case and the appeal court's ruling.