[jpdoctor]

To save everyone from having to look it up:

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.

[tptacek]

Congress in this instance has not made any law prohibiting a reporter from publishing a story, and reporters being required to testify is just one of a myriad of circumstances in which parties to controversies can be required to testify in one way or another.

[baddox]

If the freedom of the press is infringed, and the infringement was legal, that must mean Congress made a law infringing on the freedom of the press, right?

[tptacek]

This is like arguing that reporters should be able to break into computers to get information for stories; after all, anything you did to criminalize that would be an infringement on the press.

[baddox]

I was disputing your claim that this wasn't a first amendment violation because Congress didn't make a relevant law. Now you're arguing that this wasn't a first amendment violation because there was no infringement on the freedom of the press, which is a much more tenable argument.

[MichaelSalib]

How was the freedom of the press infringed? I mean, the government requires that journalists and newspapers pay taxes, so is that another infringement?

[baddox]

I didn't say that the freedom of the press was infringed. I said "If the freedom of the press is infringed..."

[dragonwriter]

Constitutional freedom of the press is the right to publish information, not a special privilege of members of the professional media to avoid generally-applicable legal duties.