User talk:2600:4040:5415:C300:CFA9:FE95:6DC:EA9E

Looking at the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indictment_and_arrest_of_Julian_Assange today, I see this written:

Most cases brought under the Espionage Act have been against government employees who accessed sensitive information and leaked it to journalists and others. Prosecuting people for acts related to receiving and publishing information has not previously been tested in court.

That (the second sentence) is absolutely FALSE. There does indeed exist an extremely strong (all-but-absolute) First Amendment protection for the "Right to Report" official govt proceedings/documents (or even "publicly interesting stuff"), commonly known at the Daily Mail Principle, or the Fair Report Privilege. For the details, see the article by Susan Seager at https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/communications_lawyer/cl-v32-2-summer16.pdf. It can be succinctly summarized as follows:

[I]f a newspaper [or an individual] lawfully obtains [even if originally illegally obtained by an arm’s-length third party] truthful information about a matter of public significance [including, but not limited to, “official/governmental” documents], then state officials may not constitutionally punish publication of the information, absent a need to further a [compelling] state interest of the highest order [which is considered a standard at least as stringent as Strict Scrutiny]. — Smith v. Daily Mail — Florida Star v. B.J.F. — Bartnicki v. Vopper