> If there wasn't a legal risk, why would the Guardian have complied? They were at gunpoint. If there was merely a legal risk, it would have been sorted out b

> If there wasn't a legal risk, why would the Guardian have complied? They were at gunpoint. If there was merely a legal risk, it would have been sorted out by the courts and with lawyers. Example: Pentagon Papers, NYT. This was a no-disagreement, forced compliance situation. It's not like they debated with the armed guards and they came to mutual philosophical position. And note that The Guardian _did_ disagree. They had no other option. So the entire argument "They complied (when forced at gunpoint and under threat) -> therefore it must have been a legally gray thing for them to report on global surveillance documents" begs the question. And to that point, the argument would be thrown out of any courtroom on those grounds. When strongarm governments exercise their authoritarian muscles, we don't need to apologize and make excuses for it.