Should newspaper reporters be required to reveal their sources?

We are guaranteed freedom of the press and freedom of speech in this country but are these rights absolute? Perhaps not but I think we should error on the side of protecting them.

There is a reason that reporters should not be required to reveal their sources. The reason is that the press plays a necessary role in our society to reveal wrongs, corruption, and society problems. Many sources will not provide the information needed if they feel they may be revealed and suffer reprisal. Sources may fear losing their job, suffering physical harm, and in some cases even death. Therefore, protecting them is sometimes necessary to get the story.

There is another side of the story though. What if a story is written quoting a source that says they know where a terrorist bomb that is set to cause great destruction is being built and about to be placed. Of course, in this scenario it is in society's interest for law inforcement to be able to talk to this person. Another less dramatic situation might be where someone is liabled, they should have the right to defend against that liable and hold the person accountible.

The bottom line is reporters should under most cases not be required to reveal their sources. When it is in society's interest that they are required to reveal them it should be done in the most protective way possible. For example, only to law enforcement, only with court order, and only to the fewest people necessary.