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.