So in the opinion of the New Jersey state Court only state sanctioned media has the protections of the 1st Amendment.
How fascist of them.
“So in the opinion of the New Jersey state Court only state sanctioned media has the protections of the 1st Amendment.”
It is not and, for MOST of the nation’s history, has not been clear, Constitutionally, that “freedom of the press” - the right of “the press” to publish something without prior censorship over what it publishes - provides any right to hide the sources of the information published, if asked to do so by proper court proceeding or court approved warrant, when the court has accepted the argument that the information can lend material information to the case.
In fact, in accordance with the Constitution, the “shield law” concept has not been accepted in Federal cases; and there is as of yet no Federal “shield law”.
Keep in mind, the Federal Constitutional provision is a matter of preventing prior censorship over what the press publishes. It does not imply a right given to the press to censor, from properly constructed judicial proceedings, the sources of what it publishes; and it never has in Federal cases.
The lack of any Federal “shield law” and the Federal judicial history of the matter is, historically, closer, on the issue, than the “shield laws” to the U.S. Constitution.
Now, then, on the other side, in New Jersey and with regard to it’s own “shield laws” as applies in a New Jersey case, why should any modern form of “publishing” on the Internet NOT be afforded the same “shield” as any other commercial publisher.
Is not the older media and the Internet simply too forms of “the press” and entitled to the same “shield”, if one exists? If a “shield” exists, it does seem wrong for government to pick and choose between different forms and different media of publishing.
Back to first principles, and the Federal history, which, again as I say I think is closest to the Constitution, I do not think “shield laws” reflect original Constitutional protection of either “free speech” or “freedom of the press”.
The first amendment doesn’t shield sources.
Well the I guess the next response to the Judge would then be, "Fine your Honor, I guess I'll just exercise my 5th Amendment right."