Supreme Court Rejects Appeal From Reporter Over Identity of Source

[JDPriestly]

33. I'm not comfortable with the fact that Risen published what he did, but

where do you draw the line? And who draws it? To me, it is pretty clear that the First Amendment gives the government no authority to decide what is published and that it therefore precludes the government from forcing a journalist to identify his sources.

Correct. The freedom to publish extends to the freedom to write and the freedom to obtain information without government interference. What else could it mean?

Again here are the words of the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment

The First Amendment says nothing about publishing. It prohibits Congress (the only part of the government authorized to enact laws) to "make no law . . . . abridging the freedom of the press."

The First Amendment is not limited in its scope to what may be published. It prohibits the government from abridging, a broad, general term meaning limiting, the freedom of the press.

The press nowadays includes all the media, not just publishing. And it certainly does not refer only to what the press says or writes. If that were true, we would not also need the freedom of speech.

The First Amendment guarantees the freedom of the press to retrieve and disseminate any information it can.

Good heavens. Haven't you read any of the writings of the Founding Fathers. They were a pretty liberal bunch for their time. Before I get a thousand responses reminding me of slavery and the lack of rights of women, I will say that they went as far as they could go considering their time.