Too much of the press today simply wants to attack using any/all leaks rather than filter leaks and only expose crime and corruption. We need the press to be able to freely expose crime and corruption without being able to simply undermine people they don’t like. When we figure out a way to stop the later while allowing the first, I’ll talk about amending the 1st amendment. Ideally, a jury of peers could determine, but the way the justice system works today a news organization would be out of business from legal fees before that happens if the government wants.
I understand what you're saying, and I agree that the press should be free to expose crime and corruption. However, should they also be free to actively seek and publish Top Secret national security information, as was the case here?
> should they also be free to actively seek and publish Top Secret national security information
In theory, NO.
In practice, everything will be classified as top secret if that means publishers can be prosecuted. We already overclassify too many things and FOIA requests either claim something doesn’t exist when it does, or redact way too much, in the name of “national security”.
For example, I think Obama claimed Hillary’s 5 year old SoS calendar was classified. And when a judge said it had to be provided for a FOIA request it was mostly redacted. If a leaker provided it, I can see an honest journalist determining one or two meetings should not be made public and not publishing those for national security. But it should not be a crime to publish the rest. My memory is fuzzy and it may have been Lerner or someone else but the amount of redactions could not have been for national security like the claimed.