The political liberty, or the freedoms to which we are entitled to by virtue of a government’s existence, that we have can never be limited without some unjust government. Yet within the confines of a government, if humans are in any deprived of political liberty, a grave injustice has been committed to each human being. Philosopher Mortimer J. Adler reaffirms this idea of the importance of political liberty in his book the Six Great Ideas. He explains:

Deprived of political liberty, as slaves are…as are the subjects of a despot no matter how benevolent, human beings cannot fulfill all their natural propensities and lead fully human lives…The only liberties to which we can make a claim upon society are the freedoms to do as we please within the limits imposed by justice that is the political liberty enjoyed by enfranchised citizens of a republic.

The affirmative’s belief in this debate will be that the freedom of press that exists in the United States, or the political liberty, cannot be limited because the justice of that society demands otherwise. Thus my value today will be that of justice with my criteria of political liberty, or the freedom within the government of the United States. I will therefore affirm the resolution, "A journalist’s right to shield confidential sources ought to be protected by the first amendment." I have a few definitions: Ought is "a moral obligation," shield is "to protect," confidential is "private," source is "one that supplies information," and a journalist is "one who writes professionally for a newspaper or periodical." I will now present one observation.

Observation 1: A journalist who shields a confidential source is merely protecting the name of that source. He is only keeping the name confidential, and is not in anyway obligated to protect any information about that person.

Contention 1: Political liberty demands that the freedom of a journalist to protect confidential sources cannot be limited. Political liberty, which Adler defines as the liberty within a government, in the case the United States, cannot be limited because to do so is to make humans no different from animals. We already give up a certain amount of liberty of our actions when we establish the government but are not willing to give up any more than necessary. This is the underlying idea of many social contract theories we hear about: liberty is not total liberty within any government. Our first amendment states in part that, "Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." By forming a government, we have already restricted liberty to the point that it cannot hurt another person. In short, I do not have the liberty to cry fire in a crowded theater as this liberty has been restricted by the creation of the United States. What is left, the freedoms that are not limited, are called political liberties—the liberties under the United States government. These political freedoms are what are referred to when we speak of freedom of speech or freedom of press. I have the freedom of speech and press under the law as they are political liberties. It is reasonable that the first amendment’s freedom of speech did not refer to unlimited freedom of speech, but the liberty to speak under the law. Any limits placed upon freedom of the press are consequently unjust as they infringe upon our naturally established political liberties. Therefore, a journalist should be free in his actions as long as they are not illegal. He has unlimited freedom of press as has already been established by the first amendment. The government or anyone else cannot infringe upon his rights and they should not be able to. Yet although the freedoms of the press are limited only by law, the media and journalist’s alike are not able to have the rights to protect the confidentiality of their sources. In making this statement, we seemingly contradict the idea of the freedom of press; that a journalist has this liberty, yet he can be forced to divulge the name of a source because he has not been protected from this force. Such an idea is absurd. It would be like my parents telling me that I had complete liberty to go outside then forcing me back inside when they decide to do so. That is not complete liberty. By not protecting a journalist’s right to shield confidential sources, the United States is failing to protect the freedom of the press. What better way to uphold this freedom of the press than by protecting a journalist’s right to shield confidential sources through the very amendment that speaks of this freedom. For the true idea of political liberties to be upheld, for the freedom of press to be upheld, the first amendment must protect the right of a journalist to protect the names of those sources that wish to remain confidential.

CONTENTION 2: Only by protecting a journalist’s right to shield confidential sources can stories safely be heard. Allow me to provide an example. Let’s say that a person knows everything about the Mafia; their locations, actions, leaders, and in general anything that could help destroy this organization. If his name is not kept confidential, he would be known and eventually killed by angry members of this organization. He would thus not be encouraged to come forward with this vital information in the first place. But if we affirm the resolution and have the journalist’s right to shield his name protected, he would not fear for his life because the Mafia would not know his name. Thus, if a journalist’s right to shield confidential sources like these is indeed protected by the first amendment, these sources will be encouraged—or at least not discouraged—to come forward with their perhaps helpful stories. If we negate the resolution, the safety of these confidential sources would not merely be in question, but the stories that they might have otherwise presented.

In any society, the political liberties to which we are entitles cannot be justly taken away, and thus our freedom of press cannot be taken away without an unjust consequence. And if a sources’ name can be protected by a journalist through the first amendment, the stories that can help our society may very well be heard. For these reasons, I affirm the resolution, "In the United States, a journalist’s right to shield confidential sources ought to be protected by the first amendment."