>>"However, it does seem that the US authorities are attempting to change the rules and limit the definition of a journalist so it does not include those with political motives."
Just for the moment, ignoring the disturbing attempted extraterritoriality, and how damaging the information may be (since we haven't seen it all yet), there's a tricky point there.
Let's just imagine for the moment we're talking about an American journalist/organisation, who have published something that many people would think was at least pushing the boundaries.
If there is an absolute 100% protection for journalists, then you could end up with a situation where someone receiving classified information [allegedly] harmful to a country's interests can be prosecuted if they don't tell anyone, or only tell a few people, but not if they're going to tell everyone and claim they're a journalist.
Surely, there's some kinds of classified information where that wouldn't make any sense?
On the other hand, if there isn't absolute protection, the government can potentially pick off people it doesn't like.
Maybe in the end it comes down to a jury decision about whether there was information with minimal journalistic value being released for malicious reasons.
For example, if someone published a list of names of informers, where there was no obvious public interest but which put people in danger, people might think that was something that was outside the bounds of protection for journalism.
Even if someone had actually published thousands of obviously protected articles, that may not necessarily prevent action being taken over even one or two that were considered to go too far.
It would be an odd situation where someone could call themselves a journalist and claim privileges a normal citizen couldn't, but was not in return expected to live up to some minimum standard of professional responsibility to qualify for the protection.
While it might not be easy to define such standards, and it seems to make sense to err on the side of journalistic freedom, there would be some kinds of information release which would be enough to make almost anyone think that a person had crossed the line.
Since Assange claims that information is being redacted, presumably *he* has a personal line which *he* doesn't think can be crossed while still calling information release justifiable journalism.
Ultimately, it may come down to where someone sets their own line, and maybe where they think potential jurors might set theirs.