No I don't. Was that after Katrina?

I'm of the mindset that when a criminal act is performed in the pursuit of something more noble that may have a positive impact on the civil society, whether it's a police officer infiltrating a biker gang and buying guns or a Citizen Journalist lying to expose some corruption, it is good. If motive is considered and the products of the work are shown to have had a positive impact in the broader sense, i.e. getting a Senator to answer the phones for an effing change, then one should be judged as virtuous and free from guilt. I'm no abolishionist, but I definitely wouldn't have sent Dred Scott home. There are some laws that should be fought and broken from time to time, and exposed as failures.

Also, can the products of O'Keefe's audio and video recording skills, like tapes and/or files, be considered intellectual property?

I'm just wondering if this would have been an issue with any of the network or cable journalists had they done that story on our dear Senator down here. Would the government treat internet journalists differently?