viscera Posted:

Constitutionally speaking, he had no “right” to share any information that the government deems “dangerous.” As in, anything that portrays the U.S. government in less than a positive light. The Espionage Acts are still in effect, just most people don’t read and have no idea what restrictions on “freedom of speech” actually exist.

I’m not saying I agree with it, I’m just saying that the government can fully justify any action they choose to take. I’d love for there to be “governmental transparency”, but we don’t have that and won’t any time in the near future.

That act is potentially unconstitutional itself and is certainly not a part of the constitution or any of its amendments. So “Constitutionally speaking” it’s a gray area. Legally the US has a very straightforward recourse against him, and I bet he knew that going in. I do not believe it should be followed.