Right...I'm not suggesting they'd need to be bankrolled, just pointing out that it's not too difficult to make the same sort of argument about Wikileaks or Edwa

Right...I'm not suggesting they'd need to be bankrolled, just pointing out that it's not too difficult to make the same sort of argument about Wikileaks or Edward Snowden: that laws were broken. For the record: I think Gawker acted like a bunch of thugs, and society didn't need a protector to rise up against them. I didn't; I just stopped reading their sites. I think Wikileaks ... well, I don't know what I think about them. They've caused harm, but they've also enlightened, and they've performed a public service that contributes to the electorate's available information. I wish they had more to contribute for other candidates, and I have no judgment on why that is other than that it appears politically motivated to not participate in opposition disclosure for all candidates (yes, I know, it may simply be that they have no data). It's difficult for me to stake an unequivocal position on them, and I think that's okay, because I have no convincing evidence to support one. Snowden? I believe he behaved in as responsible a manner he could to support his ethical beliefs, and I believe justice for him includes being allowed to live a normal life in whatever country he chooses without fear of prosecution. He profoundly affected me and my beliefs, and I have immense respect for him.