How would you change existing legislation in order to find an acceptable compromise between the freedoms of the press (e.g., freedom of speech, protection of sources) and the ability of the government to perform its duties (e.g

, safeguarding national security, prosecuting illegal activities)?

What will be an ideal response?

An ideal response will:
1, Explain the existing legal framework as it relates to freedom of the press, specifically, the prohibitions on prior restraint and the fact that the courts can compel the media to testify.
2, Discuss the tension that exists between the need for the press to operate free of government restraints—to not only perform their watchdog role but also to be free to gather information—and the government's obligation to protect the confidentiality of matters that relate to national security.
3, Propose changes in this framework, which could include granting the government greater freedom to engage in prior restraint, or the adoption of some manner of shield laws at the national level to protect reporters when they refuse to reveal their sources.
4, Explain the costs and benefits of the proposed changes within the context of the larger tension that exists.
5, Provide a clear and concise conclusion.