Mixed feelings on the Blogger outing

I am commenting on this because I think it deserves a comment.  I have very mixed feelings on the outing of a centrist Blogger, who blogged under the name of publius over at Obsidian Wings.

The reason why I have these mixed feelings is this. Because I personally know how frustrating it can be, when you have some anonymous Blogger or even person on the internet harassing you. Believe me when I tell you; I have been there and done that.  However, I also believe in the right to privacy as well. So, I am quite conflicted.

To his credit, publius or John Blevins gives some very valid reasons for his wanting to remain anonymous:

As I told Ed (to no avail), I have blogged under a pseudonym largely for private and professional reasons.  Professionally, I’ve heard that pre-tenure blogging (particularly on politics) can cause problems.  And before that, I was a lawyer with real clients.  I also believe that the classroom should be as nonpolitical as possible – and I don’t want conservative students to feel uncomfortable before they take a single class based on my posts.  So I don’t tell them about this blog.  Also, I write and research on telecom policy – and I consider blogging and academic research separate endeavors.  This, frankly, is a hobby.

Privately, I don’t write under my own name for family reasons.  I’m from a conservative Southern family – and there are certain family members who I’d prefer not to know about this blog (thanks Ed).  Also, I have family members who are well known in my home state who have had political jobs with Republicans, and I don’t want my posts to jeopardize anything for them (thanks again).

All of these things I would have told Ed, if he had asked.  Instead, I told him that I have family and professional reasons for not publishing under my own name, and he wrote back and called me an “idiot” and a “coward.”  (I’ve posted the email exchange below).

So there you have it – I’ve been successfully pseudonymous since the Iowa caucuses in 2004.  During that time, I’ve criticized hundreds of people – and been criticized myself by hundreds more.  But this has never happened.

And yes – I criticized Whelan rather harshly.  But that’s what the blogosphere is about.  Blogging is not for the thin-skinned.  And you would think that someone who spends their days trying to destroy other people’s reputations in dishonest and inflammatory ways wouldn’t be so childish and thin-skinned.

Again, I believe that Ed did have a right to know who it was that was criticizing him. However, I have reviewed the posts in question, and I simply do not believe that a public outing was necessary and quite frankly; it shows a lack of class and a very childish demeanor on the part of Ed Whelan.  I do however disagree with the line of “But that’s what the blogosphere is about.” I feel that if you are going to criticize someone, you should have the guts to give your true identity. Criticizing someone behind the cloak of anonymity is the essence of cowardice, in my humble opinion.

The bottom line is this; if you are going criticize someone and you are going to hide behind an assumed named, you should be prepared to be exposed for the coward that you are. Further, one should not complain that they are being exposed, because a “pen name” is not a guarantee of privacy.

However, in the wake of the shooting of the abortion doctor and many of the other incidents in the last few months, one would think that Ed Whelan would have used a bit more common sense in a situation as this. But then again, we are talking about Neo-Cons. Not that they care about privacy, just ask George W. Bush. 🙄

Update: Ed Morrissey gives his take and quite surprisingly basically somewhat agrees with me. Not to rip off Redd Foxx or anything, but….This is the big one, Elizabeth I’m coming join you honey!  Oh hell, Here’s Mr. Foxx doing it better, than I ever could: (Scroll to the 3:13 mark, if you want to see what I’m referring to…)

Update #2: Ed Whelan posts a follow up, further proving that he’s nothing more than a fucking asshole. But then again, you most likely already knew that. I retract this, click here to see why.

Update #3: Whelan Apologizes and Outed blogger accepts. Case Closed. Well done on both sides.

Others:The Anonymous Liberal, Washington Monthly, Outside The Beltway, JustOneMinute, Opinio Juris, The Strata-Sphere, Riehl World View, PointOfLaw Forum, PoliGazette, Sadly, No!, TBogg and Balloon Juice

5 Replies to “Mixed feelings on the Blogger outing”

  1. I (obviously) don’t think it’s cowardly to be anon. I value privacy very much. I don’t like outing gays no matter what their political status or views (and some conservative Repubicans have been so, much to my disapproval). I think people have a right to hide some of their activities from friends, family, and business contacts. Relatively trivial activities (like betting on horses) to more substantive ones (blogging).

    If someone takes the trouble to be anonymous (i.e. hidden from view) going to a church, is that person a coward? Is it somehow right to out the person as a Mormon, Catholic, or whatever? Tell their family and employers?

    Strikes me that outing is a pure act of ad-hominem vindictiveness.

Comments are closed.