My question, based on the New York Times v. US link posted above - does that set precedent that basically invalidates that portion of the statute? Common law being a very powerful thing and all, it seems that once it has been leaked to someone who was not supposed to have it, the classification of the document is no longer valid, no?
edit: Also - is there an official definition that the SCOTUS uses to determine the meaning of the word "Press?" Could posting it to an aviation forum, for example, be considered the posting of news in the same way that a newspaper is?
What we're looking at is the doctrine of "prior restraint." It's certainly legal mumbo-jumbo that not many people, including myself, have a good handle on - simply because it happens infrequently, because it's highly frowned on.
Anyway, a prior restraint is what it's name sounds like - a restraint on saying/publishing something before it's said or published. It's simply the government telling you that you're not allowed to say something.
For instance, if there's a law stating "thou shalt not discuss aviation matters on an internet forum under penalty of imprisonment," that's a prior restraint, because it places a "restraint" on you saying something "prior" to you actually saying it.
And, that's severely frowned upon, because freedom of expression is valued in this country.
So, in order to impose a prior restraint, there is a
very high burden that the government has to meet. Classified information, where the classification is valid (that's very important,
vis-a-vis some of the other issues raised in this thread), certainly meets that burden - the interest in protecting, say, convoy schedules in 1942 is ridiculously higher than whatever minimal interest there might be in publishing those schedules.
So, just look at it as a "balancing test" - if public interest in keeping something from being published
vastly (and I mean
beyond any reasonable dispute whatsoever) outweighs the interest in free speech, a prior restraint is
potentially justified.
Make any sense? If it doesn't, it's probably because it's one of those things where: 1) you know it when you see it but can't explain it; and 2) I only have a minimal understanding because prior restraints just aren't seen frequently outside of law school classrooms (which shows how seriously they're frowned on).
