The community standard is a good way to go because it's a living standard - someone is offended and actively decides to complain and the "offending" article is brought into the public for examination and judgement.

Do you have a right to not be offended?

If so, then do I also have that right?

... and it wasn't ok for the Governor of NY to compel a prostitute to cross state lines.

Both are illegal felonies, and both should (have) result(ed) in resignation.

I am disappointed that Mr. Greenwald is equivocating on behalf of the Governor. This is the first time I have disagreed with anything he has written. I am surprised because I had believed that Glenn was one of the most evenhanded journalists I have read. His reaction to this even has caused me to reexamine my prior opinion of his work.

The entire question of political motivation on the part of the Bush Justice Department is another issue entirely. I do feel that this is quite probably a result of warrantless wiretapping.

The prosecutors could gather enough information illegally to subsequently investigate and strike 'legally' without betraying their original illicit sources.

I suspect that, like the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal, there will be few individuals involved in this scandal exhibiting noble intentions.

If a public official breaks a law and no one is demonstrably hurt, then it is A-OK.

I said the opposite in the post.

And just who are the victims of the President's warrantless wiretapping program?

The people on whom he eavesdropped with no warrants. Their privacy was invaded and their constitutional rights violated.

Therefore, what the President did is perfectly fine. If the law is not the law for Spitzer, it is not the law for Bush and not for anyone else.

Try carefully to read this:

He should be treated no differently -- no better and no worse -- than the average citizen whom law enforcement catches hiring prostitutes.

Glenn Greenwald: "So you would say the same about any illegal behavior -- if he smoked pot once at a party, gambled once in a private poker game, committed adultery in a state where that's illegal."

Like I said, these are non-parallels. I thought you had legal and logical academic training? I can't believe you would use such weak and utterly self-serving non-parallels as arguments.

"Smoked pot once at a party" is totally a self-serving comparison. Notice you put the word "once" in there, implying it happened in the vague past. Also, you mention it's "at a party," implying more of a collective culpability than anything done as a lone individual. Then you forget that smoking pot does not involve another person, and does not involve such sensitive issues as (1) sexual betrayal of a spouse, (2) the possibility of a coercive element, (3) concerns over STDs and other consequences. Add all of this up, and your parallel example is laughable. You know it. I know you know it, because I know you're a smart guy, and you're way too smart for this line of argument.

Glenn Greenwald: ""Hey, it's a crime, and so it's a big, big story." That's your mindset? No need to think about the seriousness of the crime, whether there are victims -- just "illegal = big story!!!""

Come on, you're pushing this way too hard. It's a big story and you know it. Any journalist would go after this, especially with it handed to them on a platter like it has been here. They'd be wrong not to! Are you denying that journalists are serving the public by reporting that an elected representative is implicated in a crime?

You are making two arguments here, and your other argument is that this story is of RELATIVE LESSER IMPORTANCE than other stories. On that, you and I agree. If you were to stick to this argument, I would be in 100% agreement. Why does the press go gaga over a guy caught with hookers and not over the president mismanaging billions of dollars? That is a worthwhile question. I have no argument.

Glenn Greenwald: "There is literally nothing I care less about in the world than how Eliot Spitzer "stimulates his pud," and unless your his wife, I find it morally twisted that that's of concern to you."

You are losing it here. It's not "morally twisted" for me to question Spitzer's judgment in hiring prostitutes. I find elected officials who hire prostitutes while affecting a high moral tone in their public appearances reprehensible. Don't you? I mean, isn't it hypocritical? Why don't all these elected officials argue on behalf of legalizing prostitution if they want to do it so much? At least then they would be consistent. Aren't you offended by all the Republicans who frame themselves as "family values" people and then turn out to be hiring nearly underage women to give them blowjobs? How is Spitzer any different?

Glenn Greenwald: "I think some people been watching a few too many gangster movies, or local newscasts or something."

You're not answering me, and instead you're trying to say I'm being foolish for making a factual statement, that prostitution is a form of "organized crime." That's not right, and you know it. Are you denying that prostitution is a form of organized crime? And that these organizations very often overlap with other forms of crime? I am sure many prostitution organizations strive to be safe and low-key and non-coercive, but how can anybody be sure that this is one of them?

Glenn Greenwald: "Most of these "escort agencies" are tiny one-person businesses run by an individual from their home, with a website. They have a few women on their sites. People call and book them, they call the women, the meeting occurs. It isn't complicated."

I've read about them, and I'm sure there are some that are no big deal. But how do we know this was what Spitzer was involved in? I didn't realize those facts were in yet.

Glenn Greenwald: "The idea that these women -- $1,000-$3,000/hour -- are some sort of exploited quasi-slaves is laughable and absurd."

Most people don't know that. And since such organizations do exist, even in this country, it's all the more reason that elected officials shouldn't put themselves in a situation where they have to rely on the public understanding of the difference between the "innocent" prostitution services and the unsavory ones.

Glenn Greenwald: "Have you ever talked to any? Read any literature about the prostitution business?"

Hey, as long as we're asking, Glenn, have you ever talked to any? And more importantly, have you ever hired any? I mean, you're being awfully defensive about all this, so let's get it out of the way once and for all -- are you speaking from experience here?

Glenn Greenwald: "You really have such a low opinion of adult women who choose this as their career that in your imagination, they are deprived of agency and choice?"

I haven't voiced any judgment about my opinion of these women. I think people who pay them for sex while holding public office and being mum on legalization are hypocrites though. If they're so keen on hiring prostitutes then they should be anarcho-capitalists or libertarians or whatever, and they should probably be single unless they have an "arrangement" with their wives instead of propping them up during embarassing press conferences so the poor woman can show her best "deer in the headlights" look of utter mortification. Just my opinion. I guarantee you one thing -- Mr. Spitzer will not be running around giving interviews to advocate for Hillary Clinton's presidential run anymore.