When the Constitution was originally written it was well understood (and commented on) that the "freedom of the press" idea was intended to cover not only newspaper employees, but the humble individual pamphleteer as well -- the fellow who wrote, printed, and distributed himself a leaflet or pamphlet outlining his views. Today the analog of the pamphleteer would have to be the blogger, who serves exactly the same function. Now, were there to be a federal shield law for journalists, it would have to apply to bloggers as well as media employees. Since anyone can readily become a blogger, and at no cost at that, it would seem that any person could avoid courtroom testimony by claiming to be a "journalist blogger" with relative ease. What would this do to the court system? The justice system? The whole idea of a special privilege to avoid testimony by journalists is thus constitutionally flawed.

Al Feldzamen