Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: 1st Sgt, S.D. Barracks
Settle down, people: no court will render any verdict save one that nails a reporter who actually discloses information about an ongoing program that is already protected by existing statute.
Jane Doe, reporter for the Washington Times, learns that there is an actual surveillance operation going on under the provisions of the set-up as it exists. So long as the surveillance is ongoing and the information she discloses compromises that operation--whether she thinks it's illegal or not--she'll get hung for it, plain and simple. As she should.
But to make remarks about something past? or something previously disclosed by the government? Fair game, and I can't see a judge penalizing her for that.