you keep focusing on freedom of speech and someone making a profit, but keep ignoring the fact that someone also suffered a loss, that person not being privy to the same 'insider' information that Martha had... are you unable to understand this?
Actually in this particular case, the stock eventually went up in value. But for the sake of argument, suppose it didn't. But when we make it illegal for anyone to trade on information until it is publicly announced by the company it means investors and employees have no incentive to release information that might lower the value of its stock. It can be any kind of information -- like some of the managers are crooks -- things that could be corrected if the information were public. But without it the company can go on issuing new stock and selling new bonds and more investors will lose money.
And we will see more Enrons and Global Crossings if people are inhibited from releasing information. Regulating the flow of information in the name of "fairness" hurts more people than it helps.