Apple got a mixed response when they pushed back on the FBI, but certainly not a clearly negative one. Lavabit's rather alarming case earned them substantial respect in the tech circles that learned about the matter.
Certainly whistleblowers have faced immense consequences, but they've been government or military employees engaged in major disclosures. To jail a 'captain of industry' for reporting that the government handed her a sheet of paper would be spectacularly bad optics, attacking a respected private citizen over an intuitively absurd legal mandate.
I suppose the details of the account in question would become important. If the public can be persuaded that you blew up an important investigation, you probably lose all support; we've certainly seen the government disclose a surprising amount of formerly-secret material to turn public opinion against whistleblowers. Even there, though, you could test the gag order by disclosing the fact of an NSL without the content.
If they can't show overwhelming importance, though? If it's just a cartel bust or a leaker or something similarly non-terrorist-y? I'm trying to picture the government bringing the hammer down on Cook or Mayer for going up on stage at a conference and unashamedly violating an NSL. It doesn't seem like a good fight to pick.
A FISA court order, which can force you to do much more than NSLs, is the more significant operational threat to Internet companies. These court orders typically have "do not disclose" provisions. Willfully violating that court order will almost certainly result in contempt charges.
The key here being that you will never have any knowledge of such requirements and therefore cannot act with intent to violate such requirements. Basically, can you eliminate mens rea as an element of the crime of contempt?
The burden is on the deliverer to make sure you receive, open, read and acknowledge the entire message instead of a partial message.
Willful blindness is (as one might expect) evidence of willfulness of an act, rather than a way of displaying an absence of willfulness.
Probably the only time an executive would go to jail for breaking the law in the US...
> the Attorney General may invoke the aid of any district court of the United States within the jurisdiction in which the investigation is carried on or the person or entity resides, carries on business, or may be found, to compel compliance with the request. The court may issue an order requiring the person or entity to comply with the request. Any failure to obey the order of the court may be punished by the court as contempt thereof.
So they can upgrade to a court order and then hold you in contempt if you do not fulfill the terms of the court order. I am not clear if that includes the nondisclosure term. This is the closest I've ever come to identifying "what would legally happen if someone published an NSL?" Honestly, and I'm not extremely comfortable saying this and please do not get ideas, after a lot of research I don't think there is a federal punishment defined in legislation for doing it.
Usually laws have a punishment immediately after them. As in, section A is what's illegal, section B is how to punish violations of section A. 18 USC 2709 and 18 USC 3511 don't have that, so I honestly have no idea what would happen, and I half wonder if the federal government doesn't either.
(IANAL, etc)
The question is: who is willing to find out? There's all kinds of nasty stuff the gov can do to you personally for trying to fight an NSL - loss of gov contracts, detention at custom and border control, no-fly list, etc.
As you point out, best to wisely pick your battle as you'll want public opinion behind you. And remember that as popular as she is, Martha Stewart still went to jail.
Different standards do (and, IMO, should) apply to leakers who are government employees or members of the armed forces with a security clearance and to private citizens who are not 'leaking' something but rather sharing something they did not explicitly and voluntarily (through a contract or NDA) agree not to disclose.
Perhaps unlikely, but certainly very scary.
Secondly, breaking the law or even challenging NFLs carries a personal risk of going to jail, while silently complying carries almost zero personal risk, and a small risk of damaging the company's reputation if/when someone finds out. If you're not very strongly principled, the choice is really easy to make.
Under the Patriot Act its 5 years in federal prison for any individual who violates a gag order.
I think you win in the court of public opinion if it's a broad program like this (and IMO clearly unconstitutional). If it's an NSL about, say, an order to specifically target UBL, you probably hang in public opinion. If it's an NSL about, say, finding Snowden, you might be ok. This is an interesting check and balance vs. government overreach.
I'd be a lot more comfortable with someone going public in a live press conference in DC (maybe releasing a key to a file which is pre-distributed), than someone running off to Russia or doing it anonymously, though.