[Jean S]

The logic behind defining "journalist" for this purpose is purportedly to prevent every witness under the sun from abusing this privilege (by, for example, writing a blog about whatever they heard/witnessed, and then claiming they can't reveal their "source").

So you're ok with this?

[Conscience of a Conservative]

So you're ok with this?

No. I don't think journalists should have special privileges not to testify. And, if they are granted such a privilege, I think it's unwise to attempt to define "journalist" - give judges some guidance/guidelines to help them determine whether someone asserting the privilege may do so, sure, but not a strict definition of "journalist."

My only point was that, while this is kind of stupid, it's for a limited purpose.