These are important issues, but I think it may be helpful to clarify a couple of matters that get conflated or confused in your report. As I understand your account, Garrett did in fact break a law. The possibility that he did so in a good cause does not exempt him from the legal consequences of breaking a law. The usual ethical principle that we apply is that researchers (and journalists) are willing to accept the risks in pursuit of knowledge, whether that is a law suit, criminal prosecution, or in some extreme cases death. If Garrett is unwilling to make this commitment, he should give careful thought to whether he should be pursuing that kind of research.

Journalism is not really any different, but you seem to suggest that journalists have a kind of immunity in their work. For example, you write “journalists, such as those in the United States, are provided constitutional protection against incrimination through association.” Really? Journalists in the U.S. are subject to every law that non-journalists are subject to, and enjoy no additional immunities. Moreover, the comment I quote refers to “incrimination through association,” which is deeply ambiguous. Most of us are free from guilt by simple association, not just journalists, but the case you mention is not simple association but actual violation of a law.

Please don’t mistake my intentions: I support your general point about the need for social scientists to conduct research into realms that may cross legal lines. Garrett is fortunate that he wasn’t subject to harsher penalties, and I see this as good news and an encouragement to all of us, rather than a warning.