The divide between areas of the law that distinguish journalists from others and the areas of the law that don’t can be bridged by recognizing journalism as a public-interest function, not necessarily a particular profession.
We know there are important reasons why skilled, knowledgeable journalists are a benefit to society, but we have to recognize that those levels of skill are not necessary for the purpose of defining legal protections. This makes the case for a broad definition of journalism that relies not on the job status of the speaker or the method of communication, but on the purpose of the speech. Is it to inform the public, or is it to promote a cause or company? Is it to shed light on a meaningful controversy, or to win some other advantage? Serving the public interest is, after all, more important than simply looking at whether a journalist happens to write for a living.
But making that functional distinction too broad can render it meaningless. If all personal communications become an act of journalism, too many speakers will cynically claim the title of journalist to gain a benefit, evade coverage under a restrictive law, or keep themselves out of court, and the purpose of being a journalist will be lost.
===================
Santilli, a "journalist" allowed himself to become part of the story which is unprofessional and wrong.
He got way way too close to his subject.
If it were baseball or politics, he'd just be considered a hack, but because it was a legal subject he finds himself in his current situation, in jail and at best, likely forever compromised in the eyes of the public.
===================
Consider that he may be released scott free today and still not be fbi or an informant or anything you would consider to be bad.
Consider that he is simply a big mouth; a stirrer of the pot.
People can be held for all kinds of reasons entirely legally and then released without any explanation.
He may be considered a material witness.
A material witness (in American law) is a person with information alleged to be material concerning a criminal proceeding.
The authority to detain material witnesses dates to the First Judiciary Act of 1789
===================