75. Is this prosecution constitutional?

A is correct. In the U.S. Supreme Court's cases involving the press's publication of «secret» material about legal proceedings, the government has almost always been unsuccessful in criminalizing such publication when it involves legally-obtained truthful information. See, e.g., Cox Broad. Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469 (1975). Specifically, the government may not sanction the press's publication of this type of information when: (i) the publisher did not obtain it unlawfully; (ii) the speech is a matter of public significance or concern; and (iii) there is no state interest «of the highest order» at stake. Smith v. Daily Mail Publ'g Co., 443 U.S. 97 (1979). In this case, the information was lawfully obtained, it is a matter of public concern that an execution was mishandled, and finally, the justification to protect the public from the details of executions is not a state interest of the highest order.

B is incorrect. Although it is correct that the prosecution is unconstitutional, it is not because the reporter did not promise to report only the official statement about the execution. Rather, it is because information of this nature is protected by the freedom of the press under the First Amendment.

C is incorrect. Even though publication of execution details might cause psychological damage to some children, there is no indication that withholding such publication would serve a state interest of the highest order.

D is incorrect. The newspaper did not have standing to bring an action to test the validity of the law before publishing the story. A plaintiff will be able to show a sufficient stake in the controversy only if she can show an injury in fact, that will be remedied by a decision in her favor. Without publishing the story, there would be no injury.