Every single day crimes are committed across the country and every single day the courts meet to determine who was guilty or the innocence of those involved in crimes. Courts require evidence and testimony to convict an individual of a crime. However, the American justice system is normally a successful system; there are times when the system has difficulty functioning at its best. Many of these difficulties occur when courts interact with the media, particularly journalists. The court can often use information released by journalists as evidence; however, for the information to be usable, the journalist must confess to his sources. However, many journalists do not disclose their sources, creating difficulties for the court and in many cases this type of refusal to reveal sources can land a journalist in prison for contempt. Some may wonder why a journalist wouldn't want to reveal their sources. sources if it helps solve a case in court. I think the answer to this question is obvious. If a journalist of any kind goes around revealing his sources to anyone and everyone, no one will give him information. Many whistleblowers only provide information to a journalist if the journalist can guarantee anonymity, so they would not trust a journalist who constantly reveals his sources. As a result, individuals will begin to hide their knowledge, which, in turn, will create a “chilling effect.” A “chilling effect” occurs when the free flow of information is limited and the public has less information available. This type of situation is unfavorable, however, because people have the right to know everything they can. There appears to be no easy solution to the plight of journalist privilege. Could journalists... in the middle of the paper... be legally prevented from holding them? Should journalist privilege only exist when his or her information is not crucial to determining the outcome of a case? Ignoring all these questions, even if a journalist were forced to reveal their sources, what would we do if they refused? It would be in contempt of court, so they would go to prison, but how long would a journalist stay in prison? If they remained in prison too long they would lose the opportunity to earn a living. I think all this is very difficult to understand. However, it seems to me that it is necessary for the journalist's privilege to exist; it should be judged on a case-by-case basis. I think the judges involved in a trial are the ones who will decide whether reporter's privilege applies. Having a judge decide is the only fair and middle solution I can think of.