[Alberta's Child]

The recent and prior White House reaction to the NYT story on the NSA surveillance is a strong indicator here. From what I understand, the NYT had the information for more than a year, and the White House asked them to refrain from running a story about it on the grounds of "national security concerns."

This bears all the characteristics of a government agency that knows it has no arrows in its quiver. If revealing the existence of the NSA surveillance was actually a crime, the White House would never have made that request. Instead, they would have pointed out that the NYT would be violating Title So-and-So, Section So-and-So of the U.S. criminal code -- and threatened to run the newspaper out of business and charge every employee with crimes that could land them in prison for decades.

[Raycpa]

If revealing the existence of the NSA surveillance was actually a crime, the White House would never have made that request.

The first amendment precludes the government from stopping publication before it happens.