According to his arguments the First Amendment does not apply here. And given the case law to support, i am not a judge nor am i a Constitutional expert, but i believe he would have a good argument in front of one.
On the other hand, he is not saying that there was not wrongdoing here (double negative is intended) he makes a very good point regarding the Fourth Amendment. I believe this was an unreasonable seizure simply because of the amount of time that the site was seized for was entirely too long for there not to be a court case out of it.
And he does not overlook the fact that there basically was NO investigation to the claims before the seizure took place.
Both of the above issues are Fourth Amendment issues not First Amendment issues.
The First First Amendment issue to be addressed here is whether there is case law to support the blog being considered "Press". I would hope they would win the fight for that but considering that the "Real Press" doesn't like competition i don't see that case getting very far.
We will have to wait for the Hirch's and Clean Channel's of the US to die off. (Of which they have been doing due to increase of alternative media and news.)