Jim DeRogatis has been ordered to testify as a "material witness to a crime," but Sun-Times attorney Damon Dunn has argued in three hearings since this trial's inception that the music critic should instead be viewed as a reporter.

DeRogatis received the now-infamous sex tape from an anonymous source in 2002, and he was the one who handed it over to police. The prosecution has said that they would not have a case if it were not for that tape.

That's why Kelly's defense team is so desperate for him to testify. But should he be required to do so?

"If he were to testify as a reporter, it would be a serious violation of his statutory rights, of his constitutional rights," Dunn argued in Tuesday's hearing.

So, Gaughan said that will not be the hat DeRogatis will wear on the witness stand.

"You're protecting something no one is after," Gaughan told Dunn- assuring him yet again that his client will not have to answer any questions regarding his source, or whether or not he kept a copy of the tape. (If he did, he could be charged with possession of child pornography).

According to Gaughan, the "reporter's privilege" does not apply here.

Do you think DeRogatis should be forced to testify?

Here's something else to ponder......does this ruling make you even less comfortable talking to reporters?