[HWR_14]

It's not about plausible deniability. They know the information is top secret. They asked the Navy for comment and were probably told that.

The 1st amendment still protects the reporter. They are legally in the clear. The person who told them is not.

[listenallyall]

The First Amendment doesn't mention anything about secrets, that's not what this is about. If I sell you a stolen item, and you know it is stolen, you're guilty of a crime. If you later try to sell or move those goods, that's a more severe crime, fencing. In this case the reporter is obtaining "stolen" information and passing it along, it's exactly the "fencing" of information.

I'm aware this practice has been going on for decades, people leaking private and/or classified information, often illegally. But it's like money laundering, just "info" laundering through an "unnamed source," and it feels pretty sleazy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possession_of_stolen_goods

[HWR_14]

The Supreme Court had ruled that the publication of secret information is a first amendment issue[0]. Stolen information is fine. Theft has not a thing to do with it.

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United...

[listenallyall]

The First Amendment is a constant, like a straight line, applicable to every American and all speech. The First Amendment gives you the right to say anything. However, the courts have recognized that there are a few rules that supersede even the First Amendment -- the classic "can't say fire in a crowded theater," but also libel, blatantly false advertising, etc. It's not that the First Amendment doesn't apply, but some other law or rule has higher priority, i.e. above that flat, constant line that is the 1st.

A government official privy to classified information is subject to secrecy rules that supersede the 1st. The question at issue is whether a journalist who becomes privy to the the same classified information is subject to the same rules. "The question before the court was whether the constitutional freedom of the press, guaranteed by the First Amendment, was subordinate to a claimed need of the executive branch of government to maintain the secrecy of information." i.e. which takes priority, the 1st, or rules about secrecy (the Espionage Act, in this case).

From your wikipedia article: "New York Times v. United States ... did not void the Espionage Act or give the press unlimited freedom to publish classified documents." The Court did not say that journalists have free reign, they simply refused to grant an injunction against publication. While this, and subsequent cases, certainly signal wide breadth of press freedom, it's not absolute and not a guarantee against a future prosecution.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/03/22/521009791...

FBI Director James Comey demurred. "That's a harder question, as to whether a reporter incurs criminal liability by publishing classified information," Comey said.

freedom of the press is not absolute, even in the U.S. According to a recent paper from the Congressional Research Service, the question is far from settled

The justices didn't block the government from exercising what's called "prior restraint" — that is, preventing a news organization from publishing or broadcasting news.

[Blahah]

Normal citizens have no obligation to keep the secrets of any government organisation. It is the person who holds security clearance that leaks the document that commits a crime, whereas journalists have a constitutionally protected right to publish. It's not sleazy, and is part of a healthy system that holds governments to account.

[listenallyall]

"holding governments to account" is rarely a function of classified information, it's typically revelation of some corruption that was found via some kind of investigative work -- and almost always via public documents, hence the importance of the FOIA.

When leaked classified documents show something highly troubling, like the Snowden leaks or Wikileaks, the government doubles down and does everything it can to punish those leakers to the maximum extent, which is not what a "healthy system" would do to a whistleblower exposing illegal or corrupt activity.

[rcxdude]

eh, not quite. The laws which protect secret information apply to everyone (it does require that you have reason to believe the information is secret, but it does not require that you have clearance). There are however quite powerful defenses considering the 1st amendment, especially for journalists (in other countries this often much less strong, though usually there's something analogous. For example the somewhat famous idea of signing the official secrets act in the UK doesn't mean anything except that the penalties for breaking it get more severe: you can still expect to be prosecuted under it if you are handed information marked as secret and then pass it on, unless you can succesfully argue that it is somehow in the public interest for it to be published).