A. The First Amendment created a privilege that protects reporters from divulging confidential sources because the original intent of freedom of the press was to protect reporters from media retaliation and this Court recognized this privilege in Branzburg v. United states.

The First Amendment granted reporters wide protection because the very intent of the founding generation was to protect the press, and the free flow of information that reporters create, from oppressive government interference. See Grosjean v. Am. Press Co., 297 U.S. 233, 245 (1936). The First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” The First Continental Congress explained the freedom of the press as important …show more content…
(Circuit Court. at 39). Of course this is true, the First Amendment’s grant of freedom of the press was necessary specifically because the common law lacked these types of protections. See Grosjean v. Am. Press Co., 297 U.S. 233, 245 (1936). The wide grant of protection for the press was an explicit rebuke of the British common law’s acquiescence to government tyranny. See id. The British government persistently oppressed public expression of opinion that was critical of government. See id. In fact, the Founders witnessed this persecution of the press first hand. John Peter Zenger, a German immigrant, printed a publication which was highly critical of New York government. See Sparf v. United States, 156 U.S. 51, 146 (1895). Zenger was charged with libel and because he did not deny publishing information critical of the government, and his guilt was not in question. See id. The American jury, embodying the spirit that would inspire the founding fathers, rejected the British government and returned a verdict of not guilty. See …show more content…
See Grosjean, 297 U.S. at 245. This was not for the benefit of the press itself, but rather because the flow of information created was necessary for society to thrive. See id. Thus, the founders saw protection for the free press as fundamental to the United States. For the next 150 years, this Court was never asked to definitely state that there was a reporter-source privilege that protected journalists from testifying in front of a grand jury. (13th Cir. at 39). Not until Branzburg, was the Court faced with these compelling, but conflicting societal needs. Instead of reaching a clear consensus, however, this Court was split: a four justice plurality, a one justice concurrence, and a four justice dissent. Because of this split, almost every circuit has tried to divine the true holding of