Tennessee State Rep. Mike Kernell confirms that his son is the subject of Internet "rumors" surrounding the hacked e-mail account of Sarah Palin:
Asked whether he or his son, a student at the University of Tennessee-Knoxville, had been contacted by authorities investigating the break-in of Palin's account, he responded:
As far as his 20-year-old son, David, he said: "I can't say. That doesn't mean he has or hasn't (been contacted by investigators)."
Kernell, D-Memphis, cited the father-son relationship.
He said he had talked to his son today, but that he talks to his son regularly.
He declined further comment.
WTF is "the father-son relationship?" Will that be now used legally much like "attorney-client privilege?" Cripes.
I believe Shirley was first in the DE blogosphere with this breaking news. Fellow DE blogger Mike Mahaffie isn't happy Shirley posted it, even though she clearly stated she's skeptical of the story. (But she wasn't aware of this state rep.'s recent comments noted above, it seems.)
I simply ask: If authorities did not contact Kernell's son, why not simply say so? It's really an easy thing to do. Therefore, I now suspect something, especially given Kernell's swarmy response to really easy, straightforward questions.
UPDATE: I like this question posed by Glenn Reynolds:
Do journalists care about your privacy if you aren't a terrorist? "Here we have an actual invasion of an American citizen's privacy, and what is the press's attitude? If the AP is representative (and given its organizational structure, it should be), it is to regard 'questions about the propriety' of the victim as more important than the invasion of privacy itself." That depends. Had Obama's email been hacked by a Republican, it would be Watergate all over again. . . .
Got that right. And some folks in the DE blogosphere are parroting the AP's "view."