John Henderson wrote: "It is nothing more than a means of stripping most people (deemed "not journalists") of their first amendment rights."
I don't think so. No one is being denied their right to publish anything they want. It's just that non-licensed journalists would not be able to shield their sources. Where does the First Amendment say anything about that?
I view this as no different than doctor-patient privilege laws. Real doctors don't have to disclose the content of their patient communications. Quacks, on the other hand, are not provided that same protection.
I've worked in government agencies to which people have submitted confidential "redacted" electronic files.
I can't tell you how many times I've had to tell the submitter that their redaction didn't actually do what it was supposed to do; i.e., the redacted text could easily be recovered. Oh, and the documents were subject to state-level FOIA laws.
So to those telling the agency to simply redo them and do it right, it's more complicated than that.
@coco: true, but you're confusing the world-wide-web with the Internet.
Mosaic truly opened up the WWW to Windows users, but the "Internet" was being used for email, USENET news, telnet sessions, FTP downloads, gopher, etc. before (and in some cases LONG before) the WWW was invented.