National security and the First Amendment

It's been a week since my last entry -- time to write another one.

In Sunday's Chicago Tribune, Steve Chapman had a good column on Alberto Gonzales' recent threats to punish journalists for reporting leaks. I always enjoy Chapman's writing, even though I often disagree with him.

Regarding the New York Times' reporting on the NSA's warrantless surveillance program, Chapman writes:

As a rule, the story has to pose a "clear and present danger" of serious harm [before the government can take action] -- not a speculative or distant possibility of something or other.

To get a conviction, the Justice Department would have to prove the story posed a grave risk, which would be a high hurdle. The Times, after all, didn't alert Al Qaeda confederates to the possibility that they were being wiretapped, which has always been allowed -- only that the government might be listening without a warrant instead of with one. It's hard to imagine what they'd do differently knowing that detail.

...

Even if it could prove serious damage, the government would also have to prove it outweighed the value to the public of knowing the administration was doing something that may be grossly illegal. That's another hurdle Gonzales might fall on his face trying to clear.

Right on, Mr. Chapman.