There may be certain circumstances under which speech can be directly harmful. Military operations and missle launch codes are things that should be kept secret. Information about high-powered weapons should be too. If the Japanese had been able to get information about how to build A-bombs during WWII, major cities in the U.S. probably would have been completely wiped out. I don't like the idea that the government has the power to decide what's harmful and what isn't, but there are beneficial uses of the provision.
The few examples that exist, as you've selected them above, seem to be almost entirely based on military secrets in time of war. It is not clear whether a non-security clearance civilian is restricted in any way, nor should he be.
You must remember there is a distinction to information in-confidence, and information generated independntly. It is only the breech of confidence that should be penalised, not the information itself. -- "Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies, The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - C.S. Lewis, _God in the Dock_ +---------------------+--------------------+----------------------------------+ |Julian Assange RSO | PO Box 2031 BARKER | Secret Analytic Guy Union | |proff@suburbia.net | VIC 3122 AUSTRALIA | finger for PGP key hash ID = | |proff@gnu.ai.mit.edu | FAX +61-3-98199066 | 0619737CCC143F6DEA73E27378933690 | +---------------------+--------------------+----------------------------------+