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.