Besides, being victimized this way attracts the sympathy vote.

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

If Palin prosecutes to the full extent of the law (I believe hacking is considered a terrorist act now) then she’ll be labeled a fascist. If Obama denounces the behavior it will make it seem like he is somehow associated with it on some level. I will be very surprised if this is not treated like a dead horse and buried as fast as possible by both candidates.

You’re right, and I stand corrected. I din’t think of that basic distinction about the ACLU for example.  However, let me argue differently: Maybe we are both right. What I am saying is that the persecuting, surveillance-hungry, privacy eroding, humiliating, shaming, gotcha spirit is everywhere, and one should’t necessarily watch for it only from the "state." 

 It’s in academia, the media, the workplace, the corporate world…and the point I suppose is how those organs may be fed by the state’s interests, and vice versa.

The media cogniscenti cannot claim indignation and horror at "wiretapping" and erosions of civil liberties, and NOT condemn this outright.  Never mind that it wasn’t perpetrated by the "state." 

It is the principle of surveillance and invasion of privacy we are talking about. Either we are opposed to illegal surveillance–to a kultur of surveillance–or we are not. When they (Gawker et al) point to the fruits of surveillance–what can be gleaned–they have lost all. That is precisely the best argument of the best fascists. "But look what you can find!"

I dare not draw the line only at state surveillance. I wish to scream bloody murder at any instance of privacy destruction, or destruction of individual rights and freedoms, by state, by media, by academia, or by any other medium.  (Let’s throw in divorces, celebrity invasion, and whatever else you got.) I say the best people in this world are the ones who are best at minding their own business.

The crackers who did this are not the State or its agents or even agents of a political party (despite the fact that they have an obvious political agenda – I’ve no reason at all to think the Democratic Party supported or supports them or their efforts). Nor is Gawker any of the above.

The ACLU naturally hasn’t had a comment on it, because it’s outside of their purview – and because while it’s reprehensible to reprint things that are best left private, it’s also protected by the First Amendment under current jurisprudence. (Such as there is held to be a general right to privacy, it applies only to state action, just as a private property owner can muzzle your speech on his property in general.)

There might be a tort against Gawker, but there’s no Constitutional or Civil Liberties issue.

(Likewise, I think all comparisons with the Stasi or Fascism are overblown and perhaps contrary to the point; the State had nothing to do with this (and in fact if it can find the perpetrator, the State will be punishing it this is more like classic yellow journalism, with a criminal edge on the part of the crackers.

I’m not sure Gawker’s spirit is "fascist" so much as "chav" or "utterly without decency". They’re more like Senator McCarthy at his worst (and without the excuse of there really being Communists in the State Department).)

This really is a bigger issue than Obama vs. McCain. Our media really does believe that they’re above the law, and they have no respect at all for our privacy.

Some democrats are dumb enough to defend the press in this case because they believe the press is on their side, but they forget about how the press joined with Ken Starr in his efforts to destroy and humiliate Bill Clinton.  They also forget about how nasty the press was towards Chelsea Clinton when she was younger.  The enemy of their enemy is not their friend.

They only differ from the Stasi in one way – they are vulnerable to public outrage.  They need to see tons of critical blogposts , they need to get lots of letters and they need to lose a lot of ad revenue before they’ll learn.

As for the rest: there’s still no evidence linking this to the Obama campaign. "I wouldn’t put it past him" is the sort of rationalization that leads to justifying — well, justifying acts like hacking email, because "we know there’s gotta be dirt there."

But I do agree that if Senator Obama doesn’t come out — today – and publicly condemn this and everyone who is cheering it on and trying to use it against Governor Palin, then he’s a politically naive fool, and he deserves to lose. These people are the Nixons and Liddys of the digital age, and he needs to distance himself from them in no uncertain terms.

2004 campaigns?  I guess every campaign season would probably qualify.