A reporter is sentenced to six months home confinement for refusing to identify source. I find the whole issue rather interesting, primarily because both sides seem to be wrong. I believe the government shouldn't compel a reporter to reveal a source at the drop of a hat. But I never understood where the first amendment right to a free press gives them a special immunity I as a private citizen lack. Does every jackass with a boring blog (i.e., me) now have a right to refuse to answer questions in court as a member of the fourth estate? Seems like it should be handled on a case-by-case basis (and in the above case, I think the reporter was correct to protect his source), and not turned into a freedom of speech issue where any compromise is sacrilige. Mark Bowden wrote a good artice on the subject for the Columbia Journalism Review recently, basically saying reporters should chose their battles. It seems to me that protecting the leakers in the Valerie Plume and Wen Ho Lee case just incourages people to use the media to anonymously spread slanders and character assassinations.