Journalists encounter it daily.

Imagine: You‘re working for a newspaper/magazine/etc. The phone rings. The caller says, "I have a huge story you might be interested in." You ask a few questions, get some details, and the wheels in your head start turning. Then, the caller says, "Oh, just one thing, you have to promise not to release my name. I could lose my job." Reluctantly, you say okay, you will not release their name in the article.

The source also gives you names of other possible sources of information to call. They all ask that they are not named in the article. You‘ve talked to these sources before and know they are reliable. In your story, none of the aforementioned sources are named.

Months later, you receive a subpoena. The government wants you to release the names of the sources, but, as you remember, you promised the sources confidentiality.

Unfortunately, this scenario happens more often than you would think.

Why aren‘t journalists protected from releasing names of their sources? There is no mention of any kind of protection in the constitution. One of the most important cases in this area is Branzburg v. Hayes, where the court basically said there is no absolute protection for journalists.

Currently, there are three bills pending in Congress regarding the protection of journalists and confidential sources. This site hopes to give you a background of these proposed laws, as well as a look into the past and the future.