The Electronic Frontier Foundation fancies itself as the defender of free speech on the internet. Indeed, the group has a history of defending bloggers and video creators against lawsuits and legal threats, and they've also done extensive work in getting government documents released via the Freedom of Information act.

Obviously, this group of attorneys  knows their stuff when it comes to upholding the right to free speech and the protections that should be afforded to both journalists and bloggers every.

Why, then, is the foundation coming out in support of paying off bloggers to keep quiet?

22 Dec 2007

The case in question is that of Macintosh news site Think Secret. Apple brought suit against the site in 2005 for spilling the beans on a number of products. EFF took up the fight on Think Secret's behalf, defending the site against Apple's charges of disclosing trade secrets.

Recently, the case settled. Apple agreed to pay an undisclosed sum and Think Secret agreed to shut down. You'd think that this would be an embarrassment to the free speech cause. Whatever Think Secret was paid to shut up, it was certainly peanuts as far as Apple's concerned and most likely less than what the company loses when unfavorable or premature news surfaces.

And yet, EFF attorney Terry Gross claims that "the First Amendment has prevailed" and that "every Internet journalist should feel some strength from what's happened."

I don't remember that part of the first amendment that protects freedom to take a payoff in exchange for silence. If a company paying off a blog to shut its doors is a victory for free speech, then the press really is in trouble.