> However, I do think there is a line that needs to be drawn at some point as to what is journalism, versus what is propaganda for a specific agenda masquerading as journalism.

Why does the intent/purpose of the publisher matter here in any way from a legal prospective? I fear that your opinion of his purpose is forming your opinion of its legality.

You do not draw a distinction in intent between informing the public and furthering the goals of a foreign adversary? Not saying he was, just an example, of how intent absolutely does matter from a legal perspective.

1. If the interests of the public and US adversaries coincide, then there may not be a distinction. For example, if the US government had gone rogue and was spying on literally everyone (as, indeed, appears to have happened) then it is useful to both the public at large and the US's adversaries to know about it. It is good journalism to report on it. Ditto war crimes and all sorts of other shenanigans that Wikileaks has uncovered.

2. I don't think Assange is accused specifically of furthering the goals of a foreign adversary. If there was evidence of that then he would presumably have been charged with it somewhere.

What if accomplishing the first thing necessarily accomplishes the second thing? For example, informing on any nation's heretofore unknown war crimes hurts them on the world stage.

That's a good question and I am not 100% sure where I would personally/morally draw the line. I think the conversation would be much different if all that were released was the evidence of what people consider to be a war crime. However, there was a lot more than that released than just that. Whether A (benefit to society) is greater than B (risk/damage) is always a hard distinction to make and up for significant discussion/analysis.

> That's a good question and I am not 100% sure where I would personally/morally draw the line.

What benefits or harms a country is orthogonal to what is factual. Any law that claims a moral high ground in protecting facts from being publicized, is used as a club to suppress speech. That is the moral issue, not some misguided idea that you are beholden to where and when you were born over reality to make statements. When you chase people after the fact (information is already published), you're doubling the moral insult. This isn't he ruin of the US, so it's transparently a petty vendetta.

There are practical problems (like state secrets in larger war games, ie Game Theory), which countries have historically forgone any nuance for the club, in the interest of expediency and simplicity. This isn't so complicated. Everyone understands. This is not a justification for totalitarian behavior, regardless of how dressed up the process is.

The Abu Ghraib whistleblower(s?) revelations certainly diminished the USA's reputation internationally, so weren't they, too, "furthering your adversaries'interests"?

> Why does the intent/purpose of the publisher matter here in any way from a legal prospective?

Motive is incredibly important from a legal perspective. It's the difference between self-defense and murder. I believe you have the burden of proof suggesting why motive shouldn't be considered from a legal perspective, and I believe you'll have an uphill battle doing so.

There's no way to draw this line. The vast majority of commercial journalism is propaganda, unsubstantiated by tangible facts and portrayed in directions strictly favorable to power and pleasing to the audience. Far from jesters speaking truth to power, commercial media are largely courtesans.

How do you draw a clear line between what Assange disband what other journalists do? Most journalists have agendas, if we allow our government to prosecute journalists with agendas they don't like, then we don't have a free press.