Introducing Apple-free speech

Introducing the Apple-free speech movement:
Okay. I used the word boycott and yes, I did call on bloggers in the
Apple community to rise up and be heard. But I have not the foggiest
idea of how to organize anything like this that’s getting noticed, even on another continent. So, please, if someone wants to pick up on the boycott
meme, I’ll gladly pass it on.

Also, after a night’s reflection, I’ve decided to clarify my position
and redirect the focus of my personal protest against what I feel is an
alarming and misdirected action

by a company I have admired and depended on for over two decades. I still think the products Apple
make are insanely great. I just think that suing fan websites
using the legal argument that they are not protected “free speech” is
merely insane.

Here’s exactly what I’m doing:

switching.  I’m switching from being a fanatic about Apple products to being a
mere user of them.

I’m not giving up my appreciation of the elegance of the products, but
I’m switching from being a 21-year member of the cult of Mac to being
simply a “consumer”(don’t even call me a customer) of Apple products.

I’m going to start practicing something that I’m sure is protected by the U.S. Constitution and UN Charter, something I call: Apple-free speech.

Apple-free speech means there will be no more talk by me about what I love
about Apple products.

Apple-free speech means no more suggestions from me that those who don’t use the Mac platform are crazy.

Apple-free speech means no more talk from me about how iPod/iTunes crush the competition.

Apple-free speech means I’m calling it “blogcasting” instead of podcasting.

Apple-free speech means that’s it from me on this topic.

And, at least for me, Apple-free speech means I’ll be making no
discretionary purchases from Apple until they back off this insanity.

If others want to organize something, I’ll be happy to point links in your direction.

  • jgreenwald

    Since when did the Constitution protect breaking the law? Someone signed a non-disclosure agreement, which is a legally-binding agreement against disclosing information. Someone else actively encouraged this NDA-bound individual to violate his or her contract, a practice that California law prohibits. Why does that not disturb you? Why is the destruction of the NDA something you champion? Why is the undermining of innovation in the technology sphere something you value? You do not need to know what Apple’s R&D people are working on. Your life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness do not depend on every last vestige of privacy be peeled away. Our Founding Fathers did not conceive of a constitution with the express purpose of underming the legal framework of contract law. The judge in the case seems to understand this. It would be nice if a few folks out in blogworld would consider the full implications of what they advocate.

  • Bob Perdriau

    Ask yourself what would have happened had Apple’s product plans been leaked to the New York Times – say their technology editor David Poque. Would they have made the paper? Not likely.

    For one thing there is little or no news value to the information and no compelling public interest associated with printing it. This is not something on the scale of – say – Watergate where the story must be told and sources protected.

    The only thing that can come from leaking the private product plans of a public company is damage to the company and its shareholders and – yes – even its fans and customers. This is not a free speech issue. It is an issue where criminal activity and breech of contract was involved. The perpetrator should be punished.

    Bob Perdriau

  • Geeez

    I love it when bloggies go off half-cocked…geeez, get a grip, the above posters have it right. Go Apple!

  • Donald Larson

    Apple retains the right to sue who it pleases. It need not sue every violator, it is their choice and right who to pursue legally.


  • Anthony

    Ordinary people retain the right to boycott whom they like. They need not boycott every corporation, it is their choice and right who they pursue.

  • Anthony

    I wonder, do you think jgreenwald and Bob Perdriau have even read why there might be a problem?

  • Dossy

    > Apple-free speech means that’s it from me on this topic.

    Looks like the honeymoon’s finally over. So, now you’re going to start acting like a normal person again, instead of a pro-Apple zealot! Welcome back to reality, Rex. 🙂

    “Apple. Think Litigation.”

  • Jacob

    Go all the way!
    dell, dell, dell

  • Peter

    Again, this is always a tricky line to draw.

    Essentially, the law is not an absolute protection, nor should it be. The EFF draws an parallel with Deep Throat and the Watergate case. However, keep in mind that this information concerned an illegal act–the break-in at the Democratic Headquarters in the Watergate hotel–and the fact that the president knew and authorized this illegal act.

    Apple developing a product is not an illegal act and those who report on it do not deserve to be classed among those lofty individuals who have exposed government and corporate malfeasance.

  • Eddie Dickey

    I think the danger is the precedent that would be set if Apple wins:

    Its interesting how the discussion centers around Watergate and its comparison to the Apple case.
    Must the context of the Watergate case apply to the Apple case in order for the bloggers to have
    protection under the First Amendment?