CONFIDENTIALITY OF SOURCES

Confidentiality of Sources



Confidentiality of Sources

Introduction about the Case

The petitioners, Branzburg, Pappas and Caldwell who were reporters of a newspaper in order to seek a declaration freedom of the press brought the suit. They also extended the case to personal protection with regards to information related to story and sources. The case is basically bout revealing whether is it just to bring a journalist before jury regarding exposure of sources that are confidential in nature in relation to the investigation of a criminal case. The main theme of this case is to explore whether this situation can be considered as violation of the freedom of the press that is clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution (that can be implied to the case through the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment).

Court Decision about Branzburg v. Hayes

Justice William O. Douglas stated that the First Amendment protects the right of the citizenry to receive information. It prevents any obstacles to that end, i.e., forcing reporters to reveal their confidential sources, under any circumstances (Nadine and Mary, 2005).

Justice Potter Stewart, together with Justices William Brennan and Thurgood Marshall, held that under certain rare circumstances, journalists may be required to reveal their sources to a grand jury. These include if:

1) There is probable cause the journalist has information relevant to the investigation

2) There is no other way to obtain the information

3) The State has compelling interest in obtaining information. The Justices did not believe these factors were present in case.

Interpretation of Court Decision

There is no “newsman's privilege” as it has been conceived. Reporters are subject to the same civic duties as are other citizens, but they may use the First Amendment of the Constitution as a shield to protect their sources when they could be compromised. Writing for most of the courts, Justice Byron White held that the right of withholding the names of the confidential resources from a grand jury is not permitted to the members of the press according to the first amendment. However, it acknowledged that the first amendment was not applicable because such a requirement can have chilling effects on sources; court held that this was the result of private, not governmental action. Furthermore, the court stated that a deterrent effect existed because of the absence of evidence that is statistical in nature (James and Wilson, 2007).

In addition to this, the court did not get persuaded by the argument that was presented to them that as a result of this ruling a substantial number of people would not prefer to talk to the press but it is imperative to note down that this is only implacable to grand jury of criminal investigations. The promises related to the confidentiality matter are acceptable in case of story that does not involve any activity of criminal nature. In this case, the journalists like all citizens are responsible to report it (Practicing Law Institute, 2004).

Finally, the Court said that the First Amendment had never been ...