> In accepting documents from Snowden and profiting from them, did the Post assume an obligation never to advocate against Snowden's interests?
That's too broad. The question is whether the Post assumed an obligation not to advocate for Snowden to be prosecuted for leaking the specific material they chose to publish.
I don't know what "evidence" would apply to a moral argument, but it seems like common sense to me. If I help you commit a crime, what moral standing do I have to publicly call for your prosecution?
That's too broad. The question is whether the Post assumed an obligation not to advocate for Snowden to be prosecuted for leaking the specific material they chose to publish.
I don't know what "evidence" would apply to a moral argument, but it seems like common sense to me. If I help you commit a crime, what moral standing do I have to publicly call for your prosecution?