Let’s look to nature here for some guidance. Our modern communications media can be likened to the nerve network of the human body. There, the flow of impulses along the neurons is regulated at numerous points by synapses. Similarly, the free flow of information through the now-wired body politic can be potentially regulated at every point the information flow encounters a computer. At this “synaptic” juncture, the possibility for an act of journalism exists. Seen in this way, a journalist might be more fairly defined as being anyone who commits a journalistic act in the public interest. This definition would empower any citizen to be a journalist. The validity of the journalistic act would have to be judged on a case by case basis, in order to distinguish it from acts that are defamatory or purposely and maliciously false. This new view of journalism will be the inevitable outcome of the communications revolution. But it needs be seen as a by-product of a natural process. Something to be accepted and embraced, rather than resisted by attempts to control it through clumsy and outmoded legislation. Resistance is futile. There’s no way to put the genie back in the bottle.

So who is this citizen journalist? It’s the blogger, of course, blogging, tweeting, observing, reporting, commenting on the world around and within him. Whether simply expressing his opinion or reporting directly on an event he has witnessed or reporting through a source, it is important that the blogger, in order to ensure his free and unfettered expression, be able to maintain his anonymity if he chooses. This is a critical component in the equation of free speech in the digital world. And the specific relationship that links the blogger journalist with his source is especially important, and should be inviolable. Drawing a comparison of freedom of speech to its related First Amendment right of freedom of religion, the relationship between the journalist and his source should be as sacred and inviolable as the relationship between the priest and penitent. Any excesses this inviolability may appear to create, will be moderated by the “marketplace of ideas,” an idea first articulated by John Milton in his work, “Areopagitica.” All that is required of us is to have faith in this model, that truth in competition with falsity and lies will triumph.

The relationship between the journalist and his source, used to be, though perhaps never regarded as sacred, was at least more secure than it is today. Journalists were rarely subpoenaed in an effort to uncover their sources. In the last 10 years, however, subpoenas of journalists have grown to the point where they number in the thousands per year. This circumstance gravitates around the issue of national security, and represents, along with the difficulty in defining a journalist, the second reason why the Free Flow of Information Act, either state of federal can’t gain any traction. Ever since 911 we have lived in a heightened state of anxiety over national security. This period has seen a corresponding and growing distrust of the press. The combination of anxiety and distrust has created a toxic mixture of hatred and fear and a environment antithetical to any sort of enlightened view concerning journalistic privileges, let alone extending those privileges to bloggers. Times have changed and many rights have been sacrificed on the altar of national security.
A case being argued currently illustrates just how much times have changed. That is, the prosecution of Bradley Manning over the Wikileaks affair. The case is not very different from that of Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon papers of nearly 40 years ago. In the current case, Bradely Manning a member of the military, is accused of leaking classified documents to Wikileaks, a website, revealing government lies and bad behavior. In the case of the Pentagon Papers, Ellsberg, a government functionary, was accused of leaking classified documents to the New York Times, revealing government lies and bad behavior. The very Republican Nixon Adminstration, successfully sought an injunction in federal court against the New York Times, to prevent publication. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court, and in a 6-3 decision ruled that the government failed to meet the heavy burden of proof required for prior restraint injunction. Justice Black, commenting with the majority said, “Only a free and unrestrained free press can effectively expose deception in government.”

http://www.judicialwatch.org/judicial-financial-disclosure/

You can look up federal judges by name or location