This is a powerful demonstration of the way that Western governments are increasingly taking positions which not only attack traditional morality, but do so in a manner that demonstrates their intrinsic opposition to the very rights which they are supposedly protecting. One would think that the "reasonable expectation of privacy" would easily, automatically, be trumped by the husband's free speech and economic freedom rights; after all, one cannot slander someone so long as one speaks the truth, nor should one be prevented from profiting from his unique knowledge. That is, after all, the entire premise of the media business, that people will pay for knowledge they do not currently possess.
You might agree that, quite apart from the rank injustice of this decision, it points to something further – that the justice system is actively protecting the perpetrator and blocking the victim. This is a convolution which Vox [and I] understand only too well from our increasingly marginalized vantage point and it’s numbing that whereas before it was all done surreptitiously, now they are openly turning justice on its head and brazenly lying to the people.
‘They’ is people very high up who are the driving force behind the moral equivalence and the marginalizing of any voice which could have spoken out against what is going on. Their deep cynicism is born of the knowledge that the majority either can’t see where the trail leads back to or will simply refuse to accept that it is so, preferring varied sociological explanations.