海角大神

Hollywood actors and producers are still on the defensive three weeks after hackers broke into Sony Pictures Entertainment鈥檚 computer system. Information exposed includes employee Social Security numbers 鈥� including those of actors 鈥攁nd .

On the heels of the latest information exposed, celebrities touched by the leak continue to distribute harsh words of blame 鈥� not to Sony, or to the hackers, but to reporters and news organizations that continue to disseminate the information.

Are actors and screenwriters correct? Should journalists not have touched the story? Two conversations are happening at once 鈥� one in media law, one in ethics.

Attorney David Boies, for one, has made his position clear, to news outlets: 鈥淸Sony] does not consent to your possession, review, copying, dissemination, publication, uploading, downloading, or making any use of the Stolen Information, and to request your cooperation in destroying the Stolen Information.鈥�

But legally, Sony may not "have a legal leg to stand on,鈥� writes law professor聽 for the Washington Post.聽

鈥淪ony is unlikely to prevail 鈥� either by eventually winning in court, or by scaring off prospective publishers 鈥� especially against the well-counseled, relatively deep-pocketed, and insured media organizations that it鈥檚 threatening,鈥� he writes.

several media law experts the same question. News organizations would need to argue that the information "was in the public interest," says聽Herschel Fink, the counsel for the Detroit Free Press. But others pointed to legal precedent and the fact that Mr. Boies did not cite a specific law as indicators that journalists may be in the clear.聽

Expanding the question from law to ethics, however, paints a murkier picture. Here, celebrities are far more vocal.聽

鈥淚t鈥檚 stolen information,鈥� actor Seth Rogen says, appearing with Howard Stern on Sirius XM radio, . Mr. Rogen stars in the film that the hackers may be trying to stop.聽

鈥淎ll of this information would literally just be sitting on some obscure corner of the Internet if it wasn鈥檛 for these news articles exposing the information,鈥� Rogen later continues.

Mr. Stern calls the materials 鈥渟tolen information that media outlets are directly profiting from.鈥�

Dean Baquet, The New York Times鈥檚 executive editor, that the Times has used documents that others鈥� had surfaced, though he notes that the paper does not have a firm policy. 鈥淚t would be a disservice to our readers to pretend these documents weren鈥檛 revealing and public,鈥� he writes. 鈥淏ut the main issue, the main thing we consider, is how newsworthy the documents are. In that regard I would say these aren鈥檛 the Pentagon Papers. And these aren鈥檛 Wikileaks.鈥�

This morning, an op-ed by screenwriter Aaron Sorkin that criticized journalists for doing exactly what he says the hackers are doing. (Mr. Sorkin, notably, wrote the screenplay for one of the films discussed in leaked emails)

I understand that news outlets routinely use stolen information. That鈥檚 how we got the Pentagon Papers, to use an oft-used argument. But there is nothing in these documents remotely rising to the level of public interest of the information found in the Pentagon Papers.

Do the emails contain any information about Sony breaking the law? No. Misleading the public? No. Acting in direct harm to customers, the way the tobacco companies or Enron did? No. Is there even one sentence in one private email that was stolen that even hints at wrongdoing of any kind? Anything that can help, inform or protect anyone?

The co-editor in chief of Variety聽聽he decided that the leaks were 鈥� to use his word 鈥� 鈥渘ewsworthy.鈥� I鈥檓 dying to ask him what part of the studio鈥檚 post-production notes on Cameron Crowe鈥檚 new project is newsworthy. So newsworthy that it鈥檚 worth carrying out the wishes of people who鈥檝e said they鈥檙e going to murder families and who have so far done everything they鈥檝e threatened to do. Newsworthy. As the character Inigo Montoya said in聽聽I do not think it means what you think it means."

TechCrunch鈥檚 Sarah Perez and Forbes鈥檚 Dorothy Pomerantz disagree.

聽to the gender disparity in earnings as a valuable piece of information disclosed.

鈥淚t鈥檚 one thing to talk about that fact in a vacuum or based on anecdotal evidence,鈥� she writes. 鈥淚t鈥檚 another to see a list of hundreds of employees that shows clearly that women in the same position are earning less than their male counterparts.鈥澛�

that the information contributes to the public good by exposing that 鈥渋f an organization of Sony鈥檚 size is susceptible to hacking, anyone is.鈥澛�