You go from "pedantic, but hard to argue against" to "lost the plot and are more wrong" when you say "there were also other equally, if not more, legally justifiable theories" and then list a much harder to arrive at and less legally defensable reason that is also unrelated to the actual facts of the case...

The best criticism of the ruling, imo, is that it should have been decided under the freedom of press clause. The result was correct, but if it was decided under that clause it could have avoided the campaign contribution implications.