Michelle Malkin: APPLE VS. BLOGGERS, PART II points out, and rightly so in my opinion, that this is a second-second front attack on bloggers. The First Ammendment EXPRESSLY prohibits the abridgement of freedom of the press and freedom of speech. Let's, for the sake of argument, grant that this is not journalism. The freedom of speech clause still applies. Secondly, I am in full agreement that the First Ammendment does not create a special caste of people for whom its protection applies.
Having said that, I am not of the opinion that there is a right of protecting a source. I have never been impressed when it has been asserted in print and broadcast. I am a firm believer in "owning your words". Unless there is a chance that a source will come to harm by being revealed, they should be willing to stand by their words. While I am no fan of Apple, they have every right to protect their property, both physical and intellectual. If they have a security breach they have to aggressively find the source of the leak.
Having said that, the disturbing thing about this case is the precedent of the selective application of the First Ammendment. Uneven enforcement has always created problems. It creats morale problems in the work place, and unrest in the general population. The First Ammendment cannot protect one group and not another. If it fails to protect all in the realm of conscience and communication then it becomes a farce.