I take with a huge grain of salt any story Gawker breaks regarding a politician that does not conform to their neo-progressive worldview.

If the site was owned by another guy names Ron Paul, or promulgated an unaffiliated business or message then on the face of it Ron would be certainly in the wrong. However, since the site owners in question made their site and their money entirely by using the likeness of the politician Ron Paul the issue becomes a lot murkier.

If the site owners in question were abusing Ron Paul's name to propagate a message that sounded like in some regards, but was not, Ron Pauls message, and did so in a way that implied that it was in fact Ron Pauls message - then I believe Ron is morally entitled to redress - and such would be consistant with his - though not all of his supports' - world view.

As Ron has long held forth the Constitutional principle that citizens have a right to petition the govt for redress of grievances, and using a domain name and message that falsely gave the impression of speaking for you - and making money while doing it - would certainly be a firm moral ground for such a grievance.

As usual, people who hold no understanding of the ideologies and principles in play make facile judgements that suit their own prejudices.

For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)