Seriously, the snark isn't required. My comment said nothing about a constitutional protection for journalists not being compelled to divulge sources by the cou

Seriously, the snark isn't required. My comment said nothing about a constitutional protection for journalists not being compelled to divulge sources by the courts. My comment said nothing about specifics of constitutionality in the particulars of this case. I see issues, but I did not suggest what you've interpreted. Since the NSA issues broke, you've recently popped on my comments in much this same way—read more into a statement I've made than is there, and just run with giving legal commentary only tangentially related because you've zeroed in on the way you've interpreted the words, instead of clarifying if your interpretation matches my intention. Maybe that's just what lawyers do. I really appreciate your commentary and expertise. But would you mind maybe exercising a bit more restraint? Is it going to kill you to pose a non-snarky question asking if the way you've interpreted my statement is correct? I've established elsewhere that I am not a lawyer, but trained in philosophy, and particularly political theory, instead. When I comment on things, it is from that perspective, not from a juridical precedence perspective, like you. If you want to engage the philosophical issues, cool. If you want to engage practical issues with the philosophical ones, cool. If you want to challenge points with problems posed by legal precedence and practice, that's awesome, cos I love that stuff (I appreciate the mention of Floyd, as it reminds me to pick up his work). But we've interacted enough in the last few weeks that I'd enjoy it far more if you made sure I was making a statement about legal precedents before attributing them to me with snarky callouts.