This is an important case to watch, and I think the precedent set will have compounding effects in the future, either leading to a more or less transparent government, depending on which way it falls.
More transparent government is clearly the desirable. If the outcome of this case can determine that, then the outcome should be in favor of transparent government. If the law of the land doesn't agree, then it's time it's changed; isn't it?
Well that's what it looks like to me trapped under an oppressive government on the other side of the globe, idealizing the freedom of American citizens.
At any rate, in a Common Law system like the US's (and most other British Inheritors'), the outcome of a court case like this decides the law. The system relies on the judges to interpret the constitution's protections of rights. What they say goes. Of course, it can be appealed all the way up to the Supreme Court but then that's the final word and the lawmakers don't have much to do with it.
Traditionally they don't, but they could if they wanted to. If the Supreme Court rules that something is not legal, the legislature can make it legal. The Constitution can also be amended, making the issue of constitutionality null.
Some of the most powerful Constitutional protection is in the form of amendments; the Bill of Rights. Technically, the freedom of speech is implicit in the text of the main body of the Constitution. (Any powers not specifically given to the Federal government falls to the States and People.) But the explicit text of the First Amendment has made it much easier for the People to retain their right to Free speech and press.
You're right, though, thanks for the correction.