[MindBender26]

Law is not opinion. Law is by very specific act. Please reread the part of my post regarding the Constitutional guarantee of a free press overweighting a statute prohibiting the release of certain information.

We may not like it, but it is the way the Constitutional protections operate.

[Wasanother]

Our constitution allows for a free press meaning they write about whatever they want but it comes with responsibilities and consequences for failing to act responsible.
June 8, 1789. House of Representatives, Blackstone,
"Every freeman has an undoubted right to lay what sentiments he pleases before the public; to forbid this, is to destroy the freedom of the press: but if he publishes what is improper, mischievous, or illegal, he must take the consequences of his own temerity."

Most common held view based on the Constitutional annotations from Judiciary Opinions is the Blackstone view which was the prevailing view at the time and is the one that was voted for and ratified in the Amendment of the Constitution.

[John Valentine]

You are apparently confusing the freedom to speak and publish with the responsiblity to do so within the law.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the right to publish without prior restraint, but each time it has done so, it has clearly indicated that appropriate legal action could follow if law enforement agencies want to pursue a violation of law.

I have no doubt whatsoever that the same court that would defend the Times' right to publish what they will, would not hesitate to punish them with equal vigor if what they publish is treasonous or otherwise violates national secrecy statutes.