What?
Aside from Breyer, I don't think anyone on the current court cares at all.
Right now, the decision of if linking is speech that can be prosecuted is being decided by prosecutors.
And, if scotus rules that it isn't protected I'd like to know that so we can fight to change the laws to make it protected. And so I can follow their clear tests to keep myself out of prison.
I find prosecutorial discretion to usually be a far worse form of tyrany than clear case law, even if I disagree with it.
Tyranny thrives in the opaque discretion of buerocrats.
(Beyond that, it's much more lucrative for the NSA to have the doubt and controversy persist, because there will always be pro-2nd people who see the NRA as their best shot at grouping together to fight for their 2nd Amendment rights. That was my main motivation when I belonged to the NRA. "It's a profit deal.")
(Fun fact: "The date of the very last 78-rpm record is not known, although some claim that the last one issued in the U.S. was Chuck Berry's "Too Pooped to Pop " (Chess 1747), released in February 1960.)
People like you are the problem. Linking to something, just like talking about something, is protected in most countries by free speech. The simple fact that this journalist was arrested is disgustingly totalitarian and should be of great concern. To everyone.
Why would you want this to go all the way up the rotten vines of a corrupted court system that only gives favorable rulings to those with ties to the rulers?