Journalists are arrested in China on legal grounds as well. Such laws are arguable/unjust from a typically western perspective, but are formally legal nonetheless.

The question is therefore not legality in itself, but whether the (US) laws themselves are sensible and/or egalitarian. It's implied by the OP that they aren't (and I personally agree).

Journalists are arrested in China purely because they criticize the government. Can you provide a case in China where a journalist stole troves of information and published it?

They are arrested in China because certain journalistic actions are illegal under Chinese law, under the (given) justification (stated or unstated) that it destabilizes civil society. For example, in the case of HK, journalists are prosecuted under Article 38 of the National Security law. That's the whole point of GP's post - legality by itself has no prima facie moral weight, an observation that applies also to whatever US laws the fed gov. is charging Assange of violating.

Here's the wording of the HK-specific law: "The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall enact laws on its own to prohibit any act of treason, secession, sedition, subversion against the Central People's Government, or theft of state secrets, to prohibit foreign political organisations or bodies from conducting political activities in the Region, and to prohibit political organisations or bodies of the Region from establishing ties with foreign political organisations or bodies."

If it's illegal to know a thing ("it's classified") then you're kind of stuck, right?

Governments hold a monopoly on Force, not a monopoly on Truth.

If you don't have a security clearance, it's not illegal to know the thing or even share the thing, if you happen to find out about it.

It's different for people who do have a security clearance, because they signed away their First Amendment rights for classified information.

To further clarify, holding a clearance is basically an NDA a person signs with the government. If you don't sign the NDA, it's ok for you to know the information. The question is, what crimes were committed to give you that knowledge? And how complicit were you in aiding those crimes? For example, hearing a classified fact that was inadvertently leaked in a briefing is different than paying people to break their NDA and give you secrets.

Thanks (and to parent comment); I did not know this is how it worked.

So then this appears to be the difference between the Manning/Assange and Snowden/Greenwald cases: both Manning and Snowden held security clearances and violated them by sharing with Assange and Greenwald. But while Assange may have solicited and/or assisted Manning's crime, Greenwald just passively received the materials from Snowden's crime. So Greenwald is innocent and Assange is prosecuted.

That is my understanding as well.

Has that ever been tested in court? That someone can sign away their first amendment rights?

Controversially, courts have upheld that citizens can sign away their right to a trial by jury; it's called binding arbitration.

Also normal (non-government) NDAs let you sign away your right not to be punished for speaking about certain matters. I don't like it, but it's pretty well established.

Point is that—legally speaking—rights aren't actually inalienable.

If constitutional rights can be signed away with the stroke of a pen since they are alienable... then a lot of absurdities become possible, such as someone selling themselves into slavery and so on.

Do you know the prominent cases of the examples you mentioned?

> citizens can sign away their right to a trial by jury; it's called binding arbitration

You can contract with another private entity to resolve disputes via arbitration, yes, but not with the state. The closest thing might be a plea agreement, but that happens after an indictment. You still have the right to a trial, but you may forego it if you choose.

I suppose if you're saying that a security clearance is like an NDA with the state, it's a reasonable comparison in function, but the means of prosecution is entirely different. It's like saying that everyone could be subject to UCMJ because of conscription.

Isn't that the same than a doctor signing away his right to divulgate his parent information (or a lawyer), or even more mundane, for a tech guy to publish the source code of his company ? (it's an actual question)

Is it important for the public to know the exact coordinates of troop movement in Syria? No, but the journalist can say there are troops operating in eastern Syria. A journalist without many scruples like Assange would publish the coordinates.

You seem to be implying that it would be immoral for Assange to publish such a thing but don't justify it.

It is immoral but do you think that is something Assange cares about?

It is debatable that "It is immoral". Me and clearly Assange disagree with you about it.

Giving terrorists the tools to kill US troops is morally ambiguous?

Nice way of phrasing it. Guess inventing cars gave the tools to the terrorists to kill people by driving into them.

I think this changes from country to country. For instance, Gleen Greenwald published illegally obtained conversation in Brazil and had any investigation on how he obtained the data suspended by supreme court. Later was found out that his source was a politician that had interest in the leak, and she also claimed was doing "jornalism work" to avoid legal repercussions. As long you claim to be journalist you have carte blanche.

Not sure if this would play the same in America.