How can publishing illegally obtained classified material be legal?

Its not.

People should be in jail

quote:

---

How exactly does it cover published illegally obtained classified materials? Isn't that a crime?

---

No.

quote:

---

he first amendment is great, I love it.

How exactly does it cover published illegally obtained classified materials? Isn't that a crime?

If I obtain obtain military battle plans and maps I'm pretty sure I can't just publish them in a paper.

The media's blind bloodlust to see Trump damaged or hurt has reached the point where they really don't even care if it gets innocent people killed.

---

It absolutely is legal. SCOTUS has confirmed that free speech covers the printing of classified material.

As for if you yourself published material you stole. That would be the same. You could and would be charged for stealing the classified material, you would face no charges for publishing it.

Myself , I think Congress should pass a law requiring journalists to name their sources to federal agents in the course of an investigation though.

From my simple understanding

If you "obtain" (steal) the battle plans without security clearance that is espionage which is illegal
If you have security clearance and give it to others then you're breaking a non-disclosure agreement which you sign as part of the security clearance which is illegal

If you are given the secured information from another agent unsolicited you then are not under a non-disclosure agreement nor committed espionage to obtain classified material and it's not illegal

But my understanding might be way off mark

You can obtain classified information and not know it is classified. That would be an impossible law to enforce since the publisher would have zero access to determine or vet if something is classified and having to let the govt review everything before publication would be a severe violation of the constitution.

It's still debatable whether publishing classified info is legal. The Espionage Act does not make exceptions for journalists in its language.

The SCOTUS has never made a definitive ruling on this topic. New York Times v. United States didn't really address the prosecution of journalists -- it was only about trying to stop the publication of something in the first place.

Personally, I err on the side of the 1st amendment being absolute. Otherwise it is a slippery slope as to what constitutes "national secrets" versus the public's right to know. My only point here is to say that the subject is not "settled" in the legal sense.