That is what most people understand the law to be. What is surprising in this case is that the US prosecutor is arguing that it is an incorrect understanding an

That is what most people understand the law to be. What is surprising in this case is that the US prosecutor is arguing that it is an incorrect understanding and that merely publishing or receiving classified information is a prosecutable crime under the espionage act. > James Lewis QC: Do you accept that the Pentagon Papers judgement is the most relevant one? Eric Lewis: Yes, but there are others. James Lewis QC: A close reading of the Pentagon Papers judgement shows that the New York Times might have been successfully prosecuted. Three of the Supreme Court judges specifically stated that an Espionage Act prosecution could be pursued for publication. Eric Lewis: They recognised the possibility of a prosecution. They did not say that it would succeed. James Lewis QC: So your analysis that there cannot be a prosecution of a publisher on First Amendment grounds is incorrect. ... James Lewis QC: The United States Supreme Court has never held that a journalist cannot be prosecuted for publishing national defence information. Eric Lewis: The Supreme Court has never been faced with that exact question. Because a case has never been brought. But there are closely related cases which indicate the answer. The case they are mentioning is this one (or more specifically the dropped related case against Rosen) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Franklin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Franklin Read the legal principles by which the judge was planning on allowing it to proceed with.