[Alberta's Child]

You've presented what could be a compelling argument in favor of protecting anonymous sources, but that doesn't mean this protection is covered by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

If these journalists want to be protected under the law, they'll have to get the U.S. Congress and 50 state governments to change their laws. Making a Constitutional issue of this is nothing more than a lame attempt by one of the most mediocre professions in the U.S. today to elevate their work to the same level of "legal sanctity" as that of a lawyer or doctor working on behalf of his or her client.

[stinkerpot65]

You've presented what could be a compelling argument in favor of protecting anonymous sources, but that doesn't mean this protection is covered by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

True, but the courts general only go after reporter's confidential sources as a last resort. This case is a political sham over a crime that never was.

But, there ought to be some protections for the press so that whistleblowers feel that they can get things out anonymously. The MSM sucks, but the press still has an important function in a democracy.

Lots of corruption would never come out otherwise.

It would be foolish to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Another example might be this: A big city election worker calls Fox News with evidence of massive fraud. He doesn't want to lose his job, but he will send the evidence to Fox only he can remain anonymous.

[AmishDude]

Such a law would never happen because it would force the state to determine who is, and who is not, a journalist.