The danger is the precedent, which is one reason why some states are contemplating expanding their shield laws to include bloggers. Thirty-one states and the District of Columbia have shield laws that give varying degrees of confidentiality to the sources, notes and other materials gathered in the course of work by journalists, as variously defined.

Unfortunately, Colorado's law appears to exclude Internet journalists. It defines "mass media" as "any publisher of a newspaper or periodical; wire service; radio or television station or network; news or feature syndicate; or cable television system." So the need for a tech-savvy update is acute, preferably before an Internet-related case lands in a Colorado court.

As to the bill recently introduced in Congress to create a federal privilege, the News says it doesn't really help bloggers:

Unfortunately, the proposal introduced in Congress suffers from the same problem as Colorado's law. Though it is less restrictive with regard to dissemination, adding not only electronic but satellite distribution, it ignores the blogosphere and covers only established forms of media.

Too bad. An increasing number of blogs gather and report news - some of which appears in newspapers or on TV. The most successful enjoy audiences bigger than a large majority of newspapers. As such, they deserve no less protection than their colleagues in traditional media.

My prior posts on the Apple case are here and here . A nationally syndicated Mercury News editorial critical of the decision in the Apple case is here.