> There's no exercise at all: They'd get pilloried for it in the very same media Unfortunately you only get a C+ on this exercise. :) The short answer is that

> There's no exercise at all: They'd get pilloried for it in the very same media Unfortunately you only get a C+ on this exercise. :) The short answer is that portions of the Espionage Act likely violate the First Amendment's guarantees of freedom of speech if the EA were used to prosecute journalists who obtained the materials over the transom. (Whether this applies to Wikileaks is a different story. Different facts.) The slightly more detailed answer is that the modern jurisprudence relating to the First Amendment is far more speech-protective than it was when the EA was codified a century ago. And DOJ doesn't want to risk having parts of the EA declared unconstitutional. So Glenn Greenwald and other reporters were (properly) not indicted for violations of the Espionage Act, which makes it a federal felony to publish classified NSA SIGINT or cryptographic material.