It is up to individual companies to safeguard their own information, and much is to be said for corporate accountability, but if the company fails to safeguard said information (or rather, if those safeguards fail), they do have legal recourse. You and I may not agree with that, but the law is what it is.
An example I've always liked is of Pepsi and Coca Cola. Coca Cola's recipely for Coke is one of the most famous trade secrets. Very few employees at Coca Cola know the recipe, and those who do have signed long and carefully drafted NDAs. Some disgruntled members of Coca Cola management went to Pepsi, and offered to sell Pepsi Co. the recipe. Pepsi refused the information, and immediately called the authorities. The reason? Pepsi would have spent millions litigating the issue with Coca Cola had they bought the formula, and would have lost in court.
You are welcome to think freedom of the press trumps here. I would imagine the Sentinel would make that argument. I would disagree with your assessment that it is certain that that freedom trumps here. Our courts have been very conservative when protecting intellectual property. In any case, why risk it? And against Disney?! Certainly, you must pick some battles and test your ideology and rights. This isn't a battle you pick (if there really was a battle at all...I agree with dxer07002 that the Sentinel likely never received any threat). You don't get into a legal p*ssing match with Disney. Right or wrong, you won't win.
Moreover, it isn't pragmatic for the Sentinel to get into a ing match with Disney. Alienating Disney over something so small is a great way to lose a direct source of information on one of the biggest topics about which they report. It just isn't worth it.
