Unless the NYT has clearance, this isn't true.
Baloney. Lack of official status does not suddenly make you immune to the law regarding classified material. I work for a defense contractor; of course, not all of our employees carry security clearances. However the gub'mint specialists who come in each year to brief our employees make it quite clear: ignorance of the law is no defense. Those without a clearance have the same obligation to protect classified data as those with one.
Yes it is.
For starters take a look at the Title 18, Chapter 37, Section 798a of the US Code.
ESPIONAGE AND CENSORSHIP
Disclosure of classified informationa) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information -- ~~snip~~
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
(b) As used in subsection (a) of this section -- The term ``classified information'' means information which, at the time of a violation of this section, is, for reasons of national security, specifically designated by a United States Government Agency for limited or restricted dissemination or distribution...
Note: Nowhere in that section is the term 'security clearance' used. And not to get picky but the leaker(s), this Risen mope and his co-writer, along with the NY Times, would (could) also be looking at Title 18, Chapter 19, 'Conspiracy' charges.
And really no offense but by your argument, if the NY Times would have published the A-bomb secrets the Rosenburgs stole on page one, it would have been 'A Okay'. That's nonsensical.