On outing anonymous bloggers

It's worth making a distinction between an anoynymous blogger and a pseudonymous one.

An anonymous blogger uses a throwaway identity. No reputation attaches to it. A pseudonymous poster will use a consistent online name, and after a while people will associate a body of views and works with it. Publius is pseudonymous; he used the same name consistently, so that after a while people knew "who" he was, in the sense that people online are defined by their actions.

This distinction matters, because Whelan would never have been so personally and emotionally engaged with someone writing a single comment as "Your Name".

Thing is, online, I don't really care if your name is actually Rod Dreher, or whether Ed Whelan is an Edmund or an Edward. Whether the name that I associate with a writer and his views is the one on his driver's license matters not at all to me when I'm dealing with your arguments on their merits. It only becomes relevant if I want to attack you rather than what you say.

In other words, this was an ad hominem argument, and of no more merit than any other such.

Hmmm, if you use your real name you sanitize your comments for civic consumption. If you use pseudonym you can speak your mind, be cynical, lie, or even tell it like it is. Pseudonyms keep you free from hypocrisy. Free at last, free at last.

Your Name:
I have simply no interest for the views of someone without having a real context of their background, present life, and motivations for saying what they are saying.

The rest of your comment implies that you are drawing a distinction between blogs/regular columns and comments on blogs, but it's still somewhat amusing that you want your anonymous views taken into account. (Unless your name really is Your Name? In which case I do apologize.)

the person behind the words is always of utmost relevance to the argument or opinion given when it comes to the package of information and views presented on a blog or regular column.

Well, of course, you're entitled to your own opinion. But since I don't lead, for instance, Rod Dreher's life, if he's going to persuade me of something he believes in, he's going to have to do it on more than the weight of his personal experience. A reputation for honesty may be useful in persuading me of something, or at least reducing the secondary fact-checking I perform. But in the end, if the argument doesn't fly on its merits, its espousal by any particular person won't help persuade me.

I suppose this is the authoritarian divide again?

Amusingly, the sidebar ad for this thread is from Scientology.org, and informs me that "YOU are not your name, your job or the clothes you wear."

Another party heard from, I guess...

Yes, I do see a difference between throwaway, anonymous little comments on a blog, and the person who writes the content of the blog itself, or of any writer or columnist who depends on people's professional and financial support for his or her written views, or who wishes to shape the opinions and actions of the public through expression of these. Words do not just come out of nowhere. Who is telling me what they think about politics, society, religion, etc. is extremely important, if truth matters at all, in order to know their motivations for saying what they are saying. Dick Cheney could probably have a lot of interesting or provocative arguments to make, too, but personally I'd find the picture much more complete to know what I know of his family and background, professional connections, and so on. No opinion or view is some independent entity, without context, arising from nothing.

Yes, I do see a difference between throwaway, anonymous little comments on a blog, and the person who writes the content of the blog itself, or of any writer or columnist who depends on people's professional and financial support for his or her written views, or who wishes to shape the opinions and actions of the public through expression of these. Words do not just come out of nowhere. Who is telling me what they think about politics, society, religion, etc. is extremely important, if truth matters at all, in order to know their motivations for saying what they are saying. ********* could probably have a lot of interesting or provocative arguments to make, too, but personally I'd find the picture much more complete to know what I know of his family and background, professional connections, and so on. No opinion or view is some independent entity, without context, arising from nothing.

That was D..k Ch.ney. My will not go through with his name typed.

He (and Erin) have chosen to randomly de-post my entries despite their lack of personal atttacks and solely on the basis that I was vocal in my oppostion to their opinions.

It is my experience that some comments here get de-posted for mysterious reasons. I'm not at all ruling out the possibility you put forth, Husband, but in the absence of specific information, you have to also consider the possibility that the software, which is horrible here (!!), might be responsible, without human action at all.

While I do appreciate that you are an anonymity-free blogger, it is obvious that you don't or seldom read Publius. This individual is not a shoot-from-the-lip ranter; his posts are well reasoned and not filled with invective. He has chosen to remain anonymous for more-than-acceptable reasons. Why not leave it at that?

All, "Husband's" comments keep disappearing (including the one on this thread) because he is someone Rod banned a long, long time ago. If "Husband" wants to email Rod to petition to be reinstated, that's his business, but when I'm handling the blog for Rod I just keep track of the banned posters and follow Rod's policy of unpublishing comments from banned posters (and there are more than just "Husband" who try to post on occasion).

But anyone who hasn't been banned by Rod who has a problem with a comment disappearing, please let me know--if it's stranded behind the scenes I can usually find it and free it up.

" you can't debate the fact that the publius guy used a pseudonym as a cover to criticize others. If you don't what people to find out who you are, then I'd recommend not posting provocative things on the web.

We're not talking about a single critical post. We're talking about a law professor that used the shield of anonymity as a shield from real-life criticisms of his own writings. I don't know if that counts as cowardly, but it surely counts as lame."

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I don't understand these comments at all. These are simply assertions.

How can it be that writing under a pseudonym provides cover, or a shield from "real-life criticisms"?

If by "real-life" you mean to not be confronted in person, that is a perfectly valid reason to protect one's identity.

But using one's own name, or a pseudonym, makes no difference as to the written criticism that will come, does it?

If you think it does, please explain.

Writing under a pseudonym would protect one from "real-life retribution", a valid reason, in my opinion.

But how would it protect one from critcism?

In matters of politics, undermining the position of those with our near a center of power is risky. Ed Whelan operates within the circles of power and was a member of an administration that would out a CIA agent to meet their policy objectives. What Whelan has done now is little different.

Publius did not threaten Ed Whelan. Nor insult him beyond questioning his reasoning. But Whelan could not deal with the arguments and therefore sought to inflict harm--no different than outing a CIA agent.

A case must be made against an anonymous blogger to warrant outing him or her. Ed Whelan did not make that case. The fact that there is a disparity in knowledge of personal backgrounds, as some argue above, is irrelevant. Whelan is making in argument at the National Review, a widely read conservative publication. He is well connected in the circle of policy and politics. His arguments should be critiqued as they stand irrespective of the context of the individual making the argument.

Whelan could not stand up to this.

Whelan is wrong and immoral. Publius is right.

The point is simple. Whelan did not out Plubius for any reason other than childish vindictiveness. There was nothing to be gained. We many never know what was lost. Oh yes, we know one thing that was lost, any claim to maturity Whelan may have had.

I think there are actually three different situations at issue:

1) posting miscellaneous comments to other people's blogs. I don't see any issue here-- people can be anonymous or not, no ethical issue here.

2) posting one's own thoughts on whatever issue on one's own blog, without referencing the blogs of others. Again, I see no ethical issue, anonymity or pseudonymity, or whatever, is a matter of choice.

3) using one's own blog to enter the conversation with public, non-anonymous bloggers. I do see an ethical issue with this one. Anonymity or the use of a pseudonym creates an unfair playing field. If someone wants to participate in this arena, I believe they should have the courage of their convictions and do so openly. If doing so will or might adversely affect either their personal or their professional life, then I think they need to do some serious reflecting about both their life and their opinions. So, I have no problem at all with Whelan "outing" the blogger using a pseudonym. If that blogger wants to be a part of the conversation between professional pundits, he needs to step up to the plate. Otherwise, he needs to leave other people's blogs out of his comments.

Using my real name, I emailed Mr. Whelan as soon as he "outed" Mr. Blevins, asking him what thought he was gaining by "outing" Mr. Blevins. Not surprisingly, he did not respond to my email.

I'm stuck in bed due to knee surgery, so I followed this story all weekend on the blogosphere, and by all accounts, it's pretty one-sided against Mr. Whelan. My guestimate would be it's running about 90-10 against his "outing".

My opinion is that Mr. Whelan is acting like a spoiled 12 year old who didn't like the fact that he was losing an argument to someone to whom he felt superior. Unfortunately, the ones who come out looking the worst in this entire spat are Mr. Whelan and NRO, who hires him.

By outing Mr. Blevins, Mr. Whelen confirmed Mr. Blevin's initial point: That Mr. Whelan is too often an unprincipled hack who acts as a GOP Hitman.

Anonymity or the use of a pseudonym creates an unfair playing field.

Rod,
I have to disagree with you a little bit here. You say that anonymity would probably make you a little less restrained in what you say. I disagree, at least with the types of personal attacks that you seemed to be worried about. You don't typically make personal attacks, and I don't think anonymity would make this any different. As you know, I often disagree with you and often think you are engaged in knee-jerk conservatism. But, you rarely attack someone personally, have never done it that I've seen without outlining WHY they should be attacked (and you attack them on that issue and for that reason). The fact that I often disagree with you doesn't change this.

"That's absolutely true. However, no one else is under any moral or ethical obligation to respect that pseudonymity."

It is ethical to respect the author's decision.

Whether or not one sees it as an obligation depends, I would say, on whether or not one has a decent sense of ethics.

no one else is under any moral or ethical obligation to respect that pseudonymity.

It is standard netiquette -- good online manners -- to not "out" people's pseuds. One reason for this is because pseuds are the default online. Categories of people who would be prudent to use pseuds include:

1. women

2. anyone under 25

3. anyone working as a teacher who is not a tenured college professor

4. anyone who doesn't always agree with their boss

5. anyone who doesn't always agree with their clients or customers

6. anyone who doesn't always agree with their mother or father

7. anyone who is not straight

8. anyone who is divorced

9. anyone who wants to blog about personal issues

In other words, *most people*.

Saying that people "should" blog under their RL name or that it's "best" to do so is tantamount to saying, only powerful men have the right to discuss things.

Even if there were no other good reasons to respect pseuds, there's a good conservative reason: respect is the community standard. That's why so many bloggers on both right and left have joined in condemning Whelan -- so that everyone knows that there *is* a community standard.

[B]eing anonymous gives one license to say things about others that one would not say if one had to put one's name to it.

Well . . . sorta, but not really germane. One of the most frustrating aspects of this debate is the constant elision of anonymous with pseudonymous, even when people take great pains to point out that there is a difference. Anonymity grants license, but it also takes away clout. You don't really want or need to lash out at the anonymous blog commentor --- you call them a troll or something, or ban them, and move on. Why? Because an anonymous opinion carries with it the brand of its anonymity.

Pseudonymity is markedly different, and publius was pseudonymous. He had, both at Legal Fiction and ObWi, built up a hefty store of blog posts. Because he wanted folks to read his blog, and because he thought he had points to make, I think that the same restraints acted on him as acted on you, Rod. One's arguments are not better or worse because of the name attached to them. Publius was working within a longstanding Western literary tradition --- regardless of whether or not his work rises to the level of his namesake, or Mark Twain, or George Orwell, or O. Henry, or Moliere. Over the years, he built up a canon of work, and his concern with preserving the value of that canon is likely every bit as much a restraint as attaching one's "true" name to something. After all, the value of one's "true" self is built on exactly the same thing --- a body of work, built up over time. Whether or not publius might have written differently under his real name is essentially immaterial. It is what he actually wrote under his pseudonym which built up his base of readers. It is what he actually wrote concerning Whelan's attacks -- first on Koh and then on Sotomayor -- which incited Whelan's outsized reaction. I can understand that Whelan was embarrassed, and I can understand it struck close to home, but it comes nowhere near the "what if?" concerns you express.

So in light of your "restraint" argument, let's just note that it was Ed Whelan -- the blogger blogging under his own name -- who showed a complete and total lack of restraint. The fact that Whelan attached his name to his posts and emails doesn't really make him a stand-up guy. Shouldn't that at least factor into your analysis?

This was a great topic. I had somthing I wanted to say, but by the time I got to the bottom, Ruth, Kirk, Doctor Science, and Douglas had all made such great comments that my thunder was gone. Just one last last bubble of gas is left, and that is in response to IW who said:

"Hmmm, if you use your real name you sanitize your comments for civic consumption. If you use pseudonym you can speak your mind, be cynical, lie, or even tell it like it is. Pseudonyms keep you free from hypocrisy. Free at last, free at last."

IW, I would like to have just quoted a word or two, but since I disagree with the implications of every single word in that statement, I had to quote it all. That's OK, this captcha has expired.