Seeing the promoted diary entry regarding the Ohio investigation shut down as a result of the Miller brouhaha leaves me wondering: should the freedom of the press be absolute? For example, we have doctor-patient confidentiality, yet also require suspicions of abuse and criminal behavior to be reported to legal authorities. Freedom of speech is certainly not absolute--why should freedom of the press be any different?
Although the ability to hold confidentiality for the press is important, I'd like to think that there should be exceptions to that rule. For example, if the purpose of the leak is to commit a crime intentionally, then the right not to name sources shouldn't really be applicable. I'd also argue that whistleblowing is a fundamentally different behavior [which, even if technically illegal, should be viewed differently, as its intent is stop an illegal action, not promote one].
So, while I certainly enjoy the Schadenfreude associated with the Miller case, I am disturbed by its implications in the long run. Where do we draw the line?