HELP ME ASP!!!!!!!!!!!!!! PLEASE I WILL GIVE BRAINLEST! PLEASE HELP ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Scenario 3

Federal law requires that news agencies not publish or broadcast information that could threaten the security of the nation's armed forces in times of conflict. However, the Constitution protects the right to free expression of ideas. Judges use past decisions on cases where the law and rights come into conflict to settle similar disputes. In one case, New York Times vs. United States, the Supreme Court decided that a newspaper could publish information about the military that the president said should remain secret to protect the troops. The justices said the president failed to prove that the information could threaten the nation's security.

Federal officials accuse an online newspaper of violating the law against publishing secret information about the military. One of the newspaper's reporters posted comments online about her friend, who is a soldier serving overseas. On her personal website, she posted a picture of him, where he is stationed, and negative opinions of his commanders, including the president. The newspaper insists that the reporter did this on her own time and that the newspaper is not responsible. The reporter maintains that whether at work or not, she has the right to express her opinions freely under the Constitution.

U.S. government officials say that the posting of the information could put the soldier in harm's way. Officials also say that her negative opinions could encourage others to stop supporting the soldiers and break laws in protest. They insist that because a reporter for the newspaper, people could believe that her ideas are those of everyone working for the newspaper. They say the newspaper and the reporter have threatened the safety and security of the armed forces.

Is this a matter of constitutional, criminal, civil, or military law? How do you know? __________________________________

Is the source of the law a statute, regulation, case law, or a combination? How do you know?

Determine the purpose of the law related to the scenario. Is the law intended to protect people's safety or people's rights? Explain your response and thoughts on what could happen if the law did not exist. Use details from the scenario to support your answer. _

Do you think the reporter has a valid argument? In other words, should government change the law or make an exception? Use details from the scenario to support your answer.

__________________________________

Is this a matter of constitutional, criminal, civil, or military law? How do you know? this is a constitutional matter because the reporter is saying she can write what she wants because of freedom of speech.

Is the source of the law a statute, regulation, case law, or a combination? How do you know? it is a statute law because a statute law is when a legislature makes the law.

Determine the purpose of the law related to the scenario. Is the law intended to protect people's safety or people's rights? Explain your response and thoughts on what could happen if the law did not exist. Use details from the scenario to support your answer.
I think that in this case that the law was there to ensure that the public did not get involved in matters of not only the state but of the military, I have been told many times that telling or contacting someone (when in the military) is bad because you can not give the location away it has to stay a secret.

Do you think the reporter has a valid argument? In other words, should the government change the law or make an exception? Use details from the scenario to support your answer.
I think she overstepped her boundary with this one because it is against the military law that someone from the outside world should know about the things they are doing. and if you ask why is then that is because They do not wish to give info to the public so in case there are spies from other countries they can stay a secret. so I think what the reporter did was very wrong and even if she has the right to speak what she thinks, what she thinks and what she said where wrong and went ageist the law.