Actually, it doesn't. Read the entire article. It explains when privilege is granted and when there is reason not to do so,
Not true.
The fact that the first amendment was violated makes it a federal issue. You are correct in that both exist.
It does say what I said. I know because I copied and pasted the text directly. It talks about the majority opinion, and discusses what the dissent would have liked to do. The rest of the article discusses state laws and proposed federal statutory modifications. There is no further discussion of constitutional protections for reporters above and beyond those of everyone else.
It is! Please, so we know we're all talking about the same thing, instead of just gainsaying what I write and cite, copy the bit of the article that you think shows reporters have special constitutional rights beyond those of others. While you're at it, you could cite the part of the first amendment you think gives those special rights.
You have not established a first amendment violation.
I'm not... I... wait... is agreeing allowed here?
The fact that the raid prevented the paper from publishing is the real violation. Freedom of the press is protected under the first amendment. Because the computers with the story data, layouts, and other information were seized, that paper was unable to publish. Thus, the police violated the first amendment rights of those who owned the paper and its employees.
I'm not... I... wait... is agreeing allowed here?
Their inability to publish was a secondary effect of the warrant's execution. If there were an arrest warrant for the entire printing department and they all got arrested, they would be unable to print. That's not a first amendment violation. Neither is it a first amendment violation to arrest a person with a warrant, thereby preventing them from attending a peaceful assembly. If the paper's printing location was doubling as a meth lab, a police raid on the premises likely would prevent the paper from printing. But this is not a first amendment violation. If there was a first amendment violation, it would be tied to a fourth amendment violation of the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. It would have no relation to a special first amendment protection for reporters (because one doesn't exist).
Of course. But it's a too-long leap across a too-wide chasm to get from the protection of a right to freely print and disseminate written material on one side to special rights for reporters that others do not possess on the other.
One doesn't even have to be a reporter to exercise those rights, because the first amendment doesn't say anything about reporters at all, let alone secure special rights for them.
We might indeed be saying essentially the same thing. I'm just making the point that reporting isn't anything special, and being or acting as one doesn't get you any additional constitutional protections from someone else who isn't.
Why was the press singled out in 1A if it is just free speech?
Because it isn't. The first amendment protects freedom of speech for the spoken word and freedom of the press for the printed word.
Printing presses are commercial in nature, and predominately used by journalists.
...so?
...okay?
Never said they weren't, just that being a plumber secures you just as much constitutional protection under freedom of the press as being a reporter does.
No, it isn't. That's implied by the fact that they are both mentioned. Freedom of speech applies to the spoken word. Freedom of the press applies to the written word. Although newspapers are protected by the freedom of the press, that protection is not intended for journalists exclusively.
He's a monarchist by his own admission, of course he would.
Would you be saying that if the search warrant were to have been served on one of the branches of "Trump Intergalactic Megalithic Holdings INC." and the computers have had material that could possibly have been sort of related to the possibility that someone (either management or not) might have done something that could potentially have been illegal?
Judges do not have to be members of the bar. They don't have to have law degrees. In fact they don't even have to have graduated from high school (or even middle school).
Fear naught! There will be.
Umm. Since the police officers were in possession of an apparently valid search warrant, the search was not an illegal act on the part of the police officers who were "acting under color of right".
Ummm - you do know that dead people can't sue for violations of their civil rights (or for any other reason, for that matter).
The publisher has to instruct counsel in order to sue. It is well established law that dead people are not competent to instruct counsel (even if they have left written instructions prior to their death and even if counsel is making exactly the application that the deceased would have been making had they not died).
OJ Simpson was sued by his deceased wife's family because his actions (more likely than not) violated the civil rights of his wife and by so doing caused his deceased wife's family "distress and suffering".
Not necessarily. Most search warrants authorize ANY peace officer (or equivalent term) to execute the warrant.
It always is. The "safest" thing to do with a "bogus" search warrant is make sure that you aren't both the person obtaining it and the person executing it.
When the orders are not patently illegal, it very frequently is.
There is a principle in law known as "The Thin Skull Rule". What that means is that even if what was done wouldn't have caused even the slightest harm to anyone else, that fact does not vitiate the fact that it did harm to the "Thin Skull" person.
If the search warrant was not lawfully issued, then it doesn't matter what they seized or whether what they seized was included in the search warrant because an unlawfully issued search warrant is void ab initio. However, the people who executed the search warrant may have a personal defence of "color of right" if they had no reason to suspect that the search warrant was unlawfully issued
The rule is "Don't piss off Sheriff Bubba Rightwing."