Journalists rely on source protection to obtain and disseminate public-interest material from confidential sources. Anonymity may be required to shield such sources from physical, economic, or professional retaliation in reaction to their discoveries. It is therefore not unusual for journalists to use pseudonyms or disguise the identity of their sources. Generally speaking, yes, journalists should always protect their sources. When sources provide information that could put them in danger, they have a right to expect confidentiality will be maintained. Sources need to know that if they provide information about their activities or associations, others may try to harm them or their families for telling all they know. Journalists must also consider how disclosing sources' identities might affect their own safety or that of others. For example, if a source in an oppressive regime were to identify him or herself as a journalist, it might put that person in danger of being punished by that government. There are times when sources cannot be protected. For example, if a source's life was in jeopardy, then their identity could be revealed without putting them at further risk. The same would be true if the only way to report important information is by revealing the source. In these cases, sources' rights can be overridden by other interests such as the public's right to know. As long as such actions are taken only when no other options are available, then journalists should not object to these restrictions.