press

I remain undecided about this.
We might talk about this at length later, but for now: I did not leave my studies of media law with a passion to continue our broad reading of the freedom of press clause to allow the various excuses from law already enjoyed by the press. Rather, I'm inclined to think we can scale back the current press exploitations of their privacy invasions and subpoena avoidances while still acheiving a news core that seeks to inofrm. But to the extent they inform us of Spears' latest as opposed to the next Watergate, what's the use?

A thought: the current press clause is read by the Court much like the old, broad free exercise clause. Why don't we narrow down the press clause just as Smith narrowed Exercise; to wit, the laws of general applicability must also e obeyed by press, unless we can show that the law is aimed to interfere with their work.