Isn't this conversation interesting? We proceed as if a certain childhood innocense is still in play when in reality, we are being monitored by Uncle Sug. Perhaps my skepticism is misplaced on this topic but I suspect that when the internet was being conceived and created, someone in a position of leadership and vision recognized the need to be vigilant in the execution of national security, way before the Bush Administration got credit for being the heavy-handed First Amendment deniers! The very thought of naivete is an understatement when it comes to national security. Denying journalist' First Amendment rights in light of other, more urgent national security measures is embarassingly displaced. While I could make the argument that national security is more important than First Amendment rights and lose myself in the content of meaningless babble, from a process perspective, the argument is sufficiently over-rated. I can't imagine anyone in possession of information so sensitive that the government doesn't already know its content. The draconian laws with which some are so concerned would benefit from a more careful study of history to discern the context in which draconian laws were enacted. Personally, the free and unhindered press intended by the First Amendment is alive and well and living in the USA. The price paid for protecting one's sources is akin to the price paid for the freedom it allows. Freedom isn't always free, and regrettably, the price the free press pays for the right to communicate it carries with it the awesome responsibility of knowing when to hold it and when to fold it. We sometimes confuse the rights the First Amendment offers and protects without the responsibilities that accompany such rights. Go figure.