He is right about one thing: times are changing and our institutions need to change too. There are things considered to be "tenants of democracy." Press freedo

He is right about one thing: times are changing and our institutions need to change too. There are things considered to be "tenants of democracy." Press freedoms (independence, access, source anonymity) political rights (secret ballots, right to organize, rights to protest). People actively claiming those rights is seen as a sign of health for democracy. If a government is harassing journalists, finding out people's vote or preventing political protests we immediately see this as an attack on democracy. These are protected by public opinion (formed over generations), courts and basic/fundamental/constitutional laws, usually old ones. They are not protected by governments. If the definition of "leak" or whistleblower is left to governments (pretty much any current government in the world), they will define them as some variant of "traitor" or "terrorist." In order for a distinction to be made between someone who makes information available to The People and someone who make information available to The Enemy, courts need to be involved. They need to have basic laws to lean on. BTW, I think that distinction is incredibly clear. All the cases under discussion made information available to the US public (and in some cases the subjects of other governments). They were primarily of interest to the US public. I believe independent courts would be able to make that distinction easily.