Only in the case where the subject in question is pushing public policy to hurt homosexuals while secretly being one themselves. Public figures are held to a higher standard of accountability, and a loss of some privacy is expected depending on how far your life dips into public policy and influence. The purpose in this case would be to expose the malicious hypocrisy.
You’re Average Joe or Jane? Of course not, not under any circumstances. Their bedroom is their business only. I can’t stress this enough.
> People have a right to privacy. Stealing private information is the opposite of freedom.
Higher level, to demand anonymity when pushing resourced ($$$) speech in a democracy is attempting to subvert the political system while avoiding recourse for bad faith intent and/or actions (my observations from a systems analyst perspective).
People have a right to privacy. Stealing private information is the opposite of freedom.