> the fact remains that disclosing classified information is illegal in the US
It's not as simple as that; a few points:
1. The Constitution's protection of freedom of the press can outweigh any laws on classification, though the courts haven't said that.
2. The unauthorized release of classified information has many times been important for democracy to function, for government to be held accountable, and that is exactly the role and function of the press.
3. The classification of information is believed by many to be excessive. Much that is classified is not dangerous and doesn't need to be classified. I've read several examples of information classified to cover up government activities.
4. Classification obviously could be used to intentionally reduce accountability to the public. It's not hard to imagine a scenario where the President commits a crime, and it's covered up by classification. Arguably, this happened with NSA spying and CIA torture.
5. Until the Obama administration, Presidents did not prosecute leaks regularly, indicating that they were not viewed as dangerous. Generally, not nearly all laws are enforced; 'it's illegal' is not a threshold, or it seems almost everyone could be prosecuted for something.
> Had the reporter engaged in murder or theft while reporting, would there be any outrage?
It's not as simple as that; a few points:
1. The Constitution's protection of freedom of the press can outweigh any laws on classification, though the courts haven't said that.
2. The unauthorized release of classified information has many times been important for democracy to function, for government to be held accountable, and that is exactly the role and function of the press.
3. The classification of information is believed by many to be excessive. Much that is classified is not dangerous and doesn't need to be classified. I've read several examples of information classified to cover up government activities.
4. Classification obviously could be used to intentionally reduce accountability to the public. It's not hard to imagine a scenario where the President commits a crime, and it's covered up by classification. Arguably, this happened with NSA spying and CIA torture.
5. Until the Obama administration, Presidents did not prosecute leaks regularly, indicating that they were not viewed as dangerous. Generally, not nearly all laws are enforced; 'it's illegal' is not a threshold, or it seems almost everyone could be prosecuted for something.
> Had the reporter engaged in murder or theft while reporting, would there be any outrage?
Not comparable.