I read "I don't care about the law" as "I'm not talking about the law, I'm talking about the principal", but bshole can speak for himself on that.
So lets carry that analogy over to the DNC hack. In principal I believe that political parties should be allowed to communicate privately without being hacked. That said, if they are hacked, and the hacks reveal illegal activity or bad behavior, I believe those revelations should inform our voting decisions. I just disagree that anything revealed in the DNC hacks rose to anywhere near that level.
One is obligated to care about the law if someone claims absolute rights. Absolute in the context of discussion means taking the highest priority and I have a problem with the logical consequences.
As far as the DNC hack there isn't an either/or situation. We have a case of what I believe two wrongs. One if the hack itself. The other is that the information contained was hardly flattering but informative of the principles and policies underlying the DNC machine.
In legal terms the first is unacceptable, but if we are counting on people doing the illegal to give us an absolute right of knowledge then there is no protection or even moral argument against invasion of privacy. Indeed there is an
obligation to violate the rule of law and our rights. Someone may have something worth knowing, something of benefit to the Greater Good, and consequently the person in private possession of it must be stripped of protection. Extreme some may say, but as a principle to be followed? I don't care for that at all.
Another problem is that people with this mindset want everyone ELSE to be subject but because of their obvious superior nature they should be immune. Perhaps they don't say this out loud but try to turn the tables and see what happens.