HaRPie: I am a leftie/liberal. I, in fact, actually understand the distinction between legal and ethical. “RE:” said he hoped Gawker got prosecuted along with the hacker.
Had you actually, like, gone to Volokh Conspiracy and read the thread on the Palin e-mail hacking you would actually understand what I posted. But since you’re too lazy to read Volokh, or think it’s some leftist site, here it is for you.
Per Orin Kerr–
“Well, it’s a free country, so anyone can look. But I don’t think Gawker is criminally liable for posting the information. While it’s unseemly and perhaps rather nasty to post it, it’s normally not a crime to post evidence that was obtained as a fruit of crime. There is no claim that the information was obtained in violation of the Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. 2511, which might trigger a prohibition on disclosing illegally intercepted materials. The contents here were stored, not in transit, and thus the Wiretap Act’s disclosure limitations don’t apply. See, e.g., United States v. Steiger, 318 F.3d 1039 (11th Cir. 2003). Further, even if a statute did prohibit such a disclosure — and again, I don’t know of such a statute — publishing it is likely protected by the First Amendment under Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514 (2001), assuming that Gawker was not involved in the hack.”
