Confidentiality of Sources
Professionals like attorneys, doctors, counselors, and church leaders have ethical duties and responsibilities to keep the confidentiality of information. Protecting communications is important for people seeking for legal and spiritual advice in situations that involve any type of illegal activities. If not offered, individuals might reject to cooperate in obtaining help, for instance. Journalism is not the exception; on the contrary, confidentiality is a sensitive and crucial part of the practice. That a journalist could offer confidentiality to a source puts him or her in a different level that allows accessing to information otherwise impossible to obtain. Some courts have decided that the First Amendment does not provide the writers, reporters, and journalists with the right to refuse to reveal their sources if required in a court. Journalists that had refused to go against to their profession’s trust have been jailed and fined. Shield laws are a mechanism to protect the journalist, in some way, against punishment for refusing to disclose confidentiality of sources. Even though shield laws have been enacted in 37 states, they vary from state to state. In this paper, some sensitive topics will be covered, taking the case of Branzburg v. Hayes as a base for the analysis.
Branzburg v. Hayes
Background
This case considers that reporters are to be held to the same standards as other citizens, which would subject them to grand jury testimony. The petitioner claimed that the First Amendment of the United States Constitution gives the reporters the protection of keeping confidentiality of their sources of information. The reporter at the Courier-Letter in Louisville, Kentucky, and one of the petitioners Paul Branzburg, wrote two articles about drug use in this state. The first article, written in 1969, covered the drug use in Jefferson County, and it contained a photograph of hashish held by an unidentified person. The other article was written in 1971 pertaining on drug use in Frankfort, Kentucky. For this second article, Branzburg spoke with marijuana users and obtained their cooperation for his work, under the condition of remain unidentified. When published, these articles caught the attention of law enforcement personnel. Branzburg was called to testify before a grand jury concerning his knowledge of drug activities described in the articles, and to name his sources. The reporter refused to reveal the identity and other details about his collaborators, under the statement of Freedom of the Press Clauses of the First Amendment protecting this confidentiality. Kentucky judges heard the cases; they disagreed and held that Branzburg had to identify his sources. Branzburg appealed the decision.
What did the court decide in Branzburg v. Hayes regarding a journalist's right to withhold confidential sources? The decision is this case was five to four against the possibility of confidentiality privilege. The First Amendment denied the news reporter a privilege to keep their sources confidential from the government. Reporters are subject to the same civic duties as are other citizens, and they must share information about criminal activities with the grand jury investigations. Writing for a majority of the Court, Justice Byron White held that the First Amendment does not provide members of the press with the right to withhold from a grand jury the names of confidential sources. Moreover, the Court stated that there was a lack of statistical evidence providing that such a deterrent effect existed (United States Courts, n.a.).

How have lower courts interpreted the Branzburg v. Hayes decision based on whether the cases involved civil, criminal, or grand jury proceedings?
In the aftermath of this case, the Supreme Court’s decision created that many states enacted legislation to protect journalists and reporters from being punished for refusing to disclose their sources. This legislation is commonly known as “shield laws.” The United States Courts of Appeals have interpreted the holding in Branzburg v. Hayes case in a different way. The Sixth Circuit, for instance had interpreted the decision in a strict manner, sustaining that the First Amendment does not provide the reporters and journalists with any right to withhold the identities of their sources. On the other hand, the Fifth Circuit exercised a balancing test based on the three criteria that differentiates between criminal and civil cases. This Circuit does not provide protection to confidential sources in criminal cases (United States Courts, n.a.).
Confidentiality
Summarize the approach journalists should take pertaining to promising confidentiality to sources.
Newspaper attorney, David Utevsky shared some suggestions to writers, journalists, and reporters at a seminar in Seattle, regarding the approach these media professionals should take pertaining to promising confidentiality to their sources:
A journalist should not promise confidentiality as an interview technique (Pember & Calvert, 2011). He or she should try different approaches to obtain information before offering confidentiality. Utevsky also suggested avoiding giving an absolute promise of confidentiality, trying to persuade the source to agree that the reporter may reveal the source’s name or names, if he or she faces subpoena (Pember & Calvert, 2011). The third suggestion was not to rely exclusively on information from a confidential source; it would be wise to obtain corroboration from a nonconfidential source as well (Pember & Calvert, 2011). Utevsky suggested considering other individuals, such as police or attorneys, who would want to know the identity of the source before the distribution of the material (Pember & Calvert, 2011). As the last suggestion, Utevsky advised considering if the reporter can use the information without revealing that it was obtained from a confidential source. In addition, reporters, writers, and journalists should always consult with an editor before any promise of anonymity to a source of information because if a legal action takes place, he or she will have to rely on the news outlet to assist in defending the action (Pember & Calvert, 2011).
What advice should journalists give to sources who demand confidentiality?
In some cases, the sources demand confidentiality because they fear retaliation; in other situations, the journalist may wish to promise confidentiality because in some places that promise makes it harder for someone to require the reporter to reveal the source in court. By promising confidentiality to a source, the writer, reporter, or journalist may incur legal obligations to the source, and it may turn it difficult to change in the future. The journalist should try to persuade to agree his or her identity if needed in an investigation, for example. It is important that the reporter inform the source that demanding confidentiality that it is illegal to withhold information when subpoena is issued to give testimony in court.

Shield Laws
There are no uniform shield laws. They vary from state to state, and vary between courts. Journalists typically operate at a local level where they may, or may not be protected by state shield laws. What protections do shield laws provide, if any, in addition to federal constitutional protections supporting nondisclosure of news sources? Explain your response.
A shield law protects individuals from certain lines of legal inquiry. Shield laws are commonly implemented to protect journalists’ integrity, and to offer certain protection to individuals involved in sexual assault cases. Not all countries count with shield laws; in the United States, these laws are not uniformed, they vary from state to state. In the specific field of journalism, these laws protect journalistic sources. Individuals might be afraid to approach a reporter with confidential data if they knew that the reporter could be required or obligated to disclose his or her source, compromising the integrity of the material. Shield laws allow journalists to ensure confidentiality to their sources to obtain better information and stories. By November 2009, all states except Wyoming offered some form of legally recognized protection for journalists seeking to preserve confidentially of their sources. Thirty-seven states have adopted shield laws that give a reporter a measure of protection against punishment for refusing to give testimony in a court (Pember & Calvert, 2011). In February 2005, Senator Christopher Dodd, D-Conn, introduced a federal shield law bill in Congress to protect journalists and reporters from disclosing information about their sources. However, they could be required to give information to a judge if there was no other way to obtain it (United States Courts, n. a.).

Conclusion
With the technological advancements in almost every aspect of modern society, it is more common to hear that more journalists are required to testify in court, and often they are asked to cooperate in legal proceedings by reveling confidential information. Refusing to release this information represents punishments to reporters. Even though shield laws have many limitations, writers, reporters, and journalists can still benefit from them. The ideal would be the enactment of a uniform shield law that also protects the people, providing confidence to cooperate releasing valuable information that could be beneficial to other individuals or situations. Governments around the world are in capacity to collect unthinkable amount of citizen’s information, but they are expected to use it in a responsible manner.

References
Citizen Media Law Project (2012, August 20). Promising confidentiality to your sources. Retrieved August 20, 2012, from http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/promising-confidentiality-your-sources
Pember, D. R., & Calvert, C. (2011). Mass media law (17 ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
United States Courts (n. a.). Journalists and Grand Juries. Retrieved August 21, 2012, from http://www.uscourts.gov/EducationalResources/ClassroomActivities/SixthAmendment/JournalistsAndGrandJuries/Background.aspx