She is the one that put them in the spotlight and made them part of her campaign. That makes them fair game. Look at what Presidents Clinton and Bush did with their children...they made it clear that they were off limits to the press and the press pretty much followed that request...with the exception when the Bush girls made the news on their own merits. You make them part of the spotlight and part of your platform then they are part of what the press will be reporting on. If you want privacy, then you keep them out of the spotlight and don't use then for your personal gain.
Eric -----Original Message----- From: Sam [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2010 7:26 AM To: cf-community Subject: Re: Palin email hacking case - guilty! So because you any many others claimed the child was her daughters she has no right to privacy? Start the wiretaps. On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 12:11 AM, Dana <[email protected]> wrote: > > We agree there. The stuff he found would not have been usable in > court. Publishing the business letters might have been a legitimate > free speech case, but that's not what he did. There's an invason of > privacy there if you can use such a word for a politican who made her > Down's syndrome son and teenaged daughter's sex life part of her > campaign. > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology-Michael-Dinowitz/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:317332 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
