Anybody can do whatever they want. And they get whatever they get.
My parent question was more about the reporter's OPSEC. That is, the risks that he's taken.
I have little use for assessing the moral opinions of others.
As I wrote recently, stuff that isn't testable isn't worth worrying about.
A given moral rule doesn't change because it's held by you versus someone else. Just like it makes no sense to refuse to answer the question of whether a fruit is an apple because it is in my hand instead of yours.
In other words, by having a moral rule yourself, you implicitly have a moral metarule: a rule about how to choose your moral rules.
Your refusal to answer the question doesn't make sense.
But I also don't judge the moral rules that others hold. That's one of my operating principles. You can't judge without knowing that you're right. And there's no canonical source for that. I do have opinions about how well some moral rules work vs others. But that's not about judging, only assessing workability.