> When I took journalism in college, they taught us to things that is not protected by the first amendment. One of them is anything that effects national security
You should get a refund on your tuition; a number of First Amendment protections have been articulated in national security related cases, notably the rule against prior restraint in the Pentagon Papers case which is what allowed their publication.
Attorney here! (Not offering legal advice, though - consult a licensed attorney in your state.)
They key phrase here is "prior restraint." That's not the issue here; the information has been published already. So the holding in the Pentagon Papers case (aka _New York Times_) doesn't apply to this set of circumstances.
Moreover, the Pentagon Papers case made no law. The opinion itself only reversed an appellate court decision and affirmed the judgment of a district court.
First Amendment law respecting the dissemination of classified information -- by "journalists" (whatever they may be), or otherwise -- is not as settled as people think, and it's my personal view that unless the Supreme Court concludes otherwise, Mr. Assange could find himself in very hot water, as Chelsea Manning did.
Right, I'm not saying Pentagon Papers is applicable precedent in the Assange case, just that it stands against the notion that national security magically waves away the First Amendment.
Im not 100% sure but I think parent comment needs just 1-2 more downvotes to be flagged/hidden which is kind of sad because combined with your comment, it is a valuable, relevant discussion.
In other words, comment downvoting is used for disagreement, but the effect of silencing discussions will also silence information users may be able to use to know why such comments are disagreeable.
You should get a refund on your tuition; a number of First Amendment protections have been articulated in national security related cases, notably the rule against prior restraint in the Pentagon Papers case which is what allowed their publication.