Should 'catch and kill' be legal?

[_MeDotOrg]

'Catch and kill' - the practice of buying the rights to a story and then burying it - has been justified as freedom of speech. But in reality it has nothing to do with freedom of speech. It has everything to do with the power of money to kill freedom of speech. I wonder if it would be possible to craft a law that would make such a practice more difficult. Should the 'rights' of a newspaper to 'own' a story supercede the public's right to know? Someone like David Pecker at AMI could become like J Edgar Hoover, the keeper of the secrets of the right and powerful.

[_subgenius]

It should absolutely be legal, making it illegal is more akin to censorship and worse its an erosion of property rights. The seller is free to sell or not sell; as well as negotiate terms of sale.

What reasonable argument exists for such a regulation as the one you are seemingly proposing here?