Is silence really golden?

Two San Fransisco reporters revealed that pro-baseball player Barry Bonds had used steroids. Writers at the New York Times somehow managed to exploit the identity of super secret agent Valerie Plame. These journalists had annonymous sources, though they felt their sources were strong enough for them to go ahead and publish the information.

Now, all these journalists are being summoned to court and threatened with jail time (or spent time in jail already) for not naming their sources, despite the fact that journalists are supposed to have certain protections (thank you, first amendment) that allow them the right to keep the privacy of thier sources PRIVATE.

What's your opinion? Should journalists have to give up the information of their sources, therefore losing their sources, just because a judge thinks we should know? Does anyone really care how those guys found out about Barry Bonds?

Or, what about when there are criminal cases involved, like the Valerie Plame fiasco, where good buddies of the President outted a top CIA operative to reporters after her hubby wrote an article saying there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Had the sources not been given up, we never would have seen Scooter resign.

OR is it case by case? Should the rules change for every situation, or she they be so cut and dry.

Read this from firstamendmentcenter.org, and then let me know what you think!

Thanks!
LD