A Quick Hit is a short post "for further reading" that is not front-paged. Quick hits are listed in the sidebar.
If you are the author of this post, see the Edit tab ad Help (and Advanced Help) for detailed documentation.
But this passage is pure red herring/reductio ad absurdum material:
The question is who decides. It seems clear, at least to me, that the private companies that own newspapers, and their employees, should not have the final say over the release of government secrets, and a free pass to make them public with no legal consequences. In a democracy (which, pace Greenwald, we still are), that decision must ultimately be made by the government. No doubt the government will usually be overprotective of its secrets, and so the process of decision-making — whatever it turns out to be — should openly tilt in favor of publication with minimal delay. But ultimately you can’t square this circle. Someone gets to decide, and that someone cannot be Glenn Greenwald.
Of course there never, ever have been "no legal consequences", and is Greenwald even arguing that? Is he arguing commercial media has the right (without "legal consequences") to, for example, expose every detail of producing a biological weapon in your basement? Detailed government-produced information how to most effectively breach airport security? Build a suitcase nuke or dirty bomb and plant it for maximum effect? Names, addresses and pictures of all undercover cops, agents, operatives and their families everywhere?
At this point it should be noted Kinsley is a lawyer, not a journalist. He is a commentator, mouthpiece, bloviator, opinionist. Who cares what he thinks?