Not if you read the actual ruling instead of an article turning it into sensationalism with facts omitted. Always a good idea to get the facts before you commit to making claims.

In this case the _actual_ ruling is about linking to content that you know is illegal, but you still intentionally link to for monetary gains. Any reasonable court, or person for that matter, would go "oh... yeah that's obviously a VERY DIFFERENT matter from this article's claim, and punishing someone for that is kind of reasonable."

If you take it as a given that any news publication is in some way or other 'for profit' and that all links are placed intentional some of the sensationalism is warranted.

"Illegal" content is anything that the source does not want distributed, and this ruling could make it quite hard for news sources to link to places like wikileaks.