[TheCrusader]

"Well lets not get ahead of ourselves. The press, for better or for worse, cannot be prosecuted for what they print, regardless of what it is. That's the 1st Amendment."

I cringe when I hear these words. Freedom of speech should and does have limitations. You cannot, for example, yell FIRE in a movie theatre if there is none. If a nation is at war and a major newspaper publishes 'news' that gives critical information to the enemy, I can't for the life of me see why there can be no legal recriminations.

[counterpunch]

Freedom of speech should and does have limitations.

This isn't "freedom of speech", which is not actually a Constitutionally protected right. It is freedom of the press which is.
While we all may agree that it was not in our nation's best interest, and while we may all hate the NYT -- in no small part because they do not and never have cared about the nation's best interest -- we shouldn't let that cloud our judgement. The first two amendments are the most important for securing a lasting freedom, and I wouldn't go trying to disregard either selectively.