News organisations should not be legally bound to take the moral high ground. While we can debate about what they should have done (and I agree with you in thi

News organisations should not be legally bound to take the moral high ground. While we can debate about what they should have done (and I agree with you in this case) it's difficult to write laws to define what constitutes a moral vs immoral publication or what is news-worthy. Consider what would have happened in they had a Clinton-Lewinsky sex tape. Could they have released that to refute Bill Clinton's denials? It quickly gets very difficult, and I would rather have a totally free press than one that has to worry about running afoul of moral news laws.