If you know the goods at a certain pawnshop are stolen, but they have the best deals in town, do you buy stuff there? If you think TechCrunch is wrong in disse

If you know the goods at a certain pawnshop are stolen, but they have the best deals in town, do you buy stuff there? If you think TechCrunch is wrong in disseminating this information, then you shouldn't click through to their articles. Doing so makes you complicit in their business model. There is a difference between someone hacking into Twitter, vs. Deep Throat talking to Bob Woodward. I think Deep Throat was doing a public service, and I'm happy to be complicit in his and Bob Woodward's conveyance of "confidential" information to the public. Was the Twitter hacker doing a public service of any kind? Or was it vendetta, or competition, or just mischief? To the extent that there is no public service, then by reading TechCrunch's posts of that material, you are just buying stolen goods from a pawnshop.