If a journalist had done this, there would not be an issue. The difference is that this lone individual is a lot easier to make an example of than a newspaper or television station with very good lawyers on retention. If you go out into the public, no matter who you are, there are assumed risks. The police are not allowed to censor, and they are especially not allowed to arrest someone behaving in this fashion. When they do, it's an abuse of their power because they know they can't prosecute for a crime, it's simple intimidation by the state. This constitutes prior restraint, and these issues were dealt with in England a long time ago when the government attempted to force publications to purchase a stamp before they could publish, effectively prohibiting what they could publish. Oh yeah! Happened in the colonies too! Remember that whole stamp tax for broadsheet paper fiasco? It's in your history books. This matter was also resolved with the Pentagon Papers, showing that media outlets can in fact publish classified documents if they get their hands on them. If you want to say that this was not a media outlet, then you're opening up a whole can of worms because the last thing that needs to be decided by the supreme court is what a journalist is. In other words, the more you define something wtihin the law, the more you restrict it. Transparency is what keeps a government accountable to the public. It might hurt your feelings knowing someone can gather and publish information about you, but these are public officials, they are not entitled to privacy guarantees under federal law. State law might be different, but that can be argued through. Now private individuals, that's another matter, and go Google up "Strict Scrutiny" if you need to understand how that works.