[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.

[Alberta's Child]

Maybe. But I was envisioning a scenario in which the White House knew full well that it could not stop publication, but was warning of potential legal ramifications down the road.

Based on what I've read, I don't think the White House gave any indication that the NYT story involved any illegality whatsoever -- just that it wasn't a good idea to run it.

[Cboldt]

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

We don't know that for sure. NYT v. US, 403 U.S. 713 (1971), leaves open the possibility that a court will enjoin publication of certan material if Congress provides the courts with the power to issue such injunctions. Meanwhile, holds that case, the criminal penalties relating to publication of state secrets must suffice; and the government is free to criminally prosecute publishers who violate the relevant statutes.