[LatteLazy]

As I understood it, the first amendment has been hedged to protect what papers can publish. But it does not protect how or where they get the information. The result is that courts and the police both can and will raid offices, seize materials etc. The only protections against this are (a) getting it published before you're raided and (b) whatever respect for the spirit of the constitution you can inspire in judges or maybe lawmakers to try and codify these things.

Is that wrong?

I am asking here about the actual interpretation of the law, not the "ideal world" scenario...

This is the best case I could find:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branzburg_v._Hayes

[empath-nirvana]

> The result is that courts and the police both can and will raid offices, seize materials etc.

The police can and will do all kinds of illegal things, regardless of the law. It's up to the courts and DoJ, etc, to sort that out after the fact, there's not much anyone can do before it happens.

[ROTMetro]

And ironically, the courts and DOJ tend to not do anything unless publishers shine a spotlight on it. Luckily the internet has done away with most local news making everyone in the chain's life easier.

[LatteLazy]

As far as I can tell, nothing here was illegal. That's sort of the problem...

[gwbrooks]

As a clarification: Freedom of the press under the First Amendment doesn't confer special protections on journalists. Rather, it protects the rights of all Americans not merely to speak freely, but to write freely as well.