Ed Whelan, a respected legal scholar and blogger for NRO, recently “outed” a pseudonymous foe. Blogging under the name “publius,” this man repeatedly criticized Mr. Whelan’s blog posts (and Mr. Whelan himself.)
Whelan’s reasoning for the public exposure of publius’s true identity boils down to “given that publius displayed faulty reasoning, intentionally misconstrued my arguments, and demonstrated little grasp of legal concepts, when I learned that he was actually a law professor I felt that it was important for that information to become public.” [That's not a quote from Whelan, but my paraphrase of what I take to be his argument.]
You can read arguments for and against Whelan’s actions at Hot Air, but here are a couple that are more recent:
Jonathan Adler (Whelan’s co-blogger at Bench Memos who once blogged under a pseudonym himself):
In my view – and I’m hardly a disinterested party given my own history– pseudonymous blogging can enrich the academic and policy blogosphere. While it enables some to hurl reckless charges and gross epithets, it also facilitates the engagement of more individuals in on-line discussion and debate. There are many understandable reasons why intelligent and knowledgeable people in various fields are reluctant to blog under their own name. Adopting a pseudonym is not necessarily a cowardly or sinister act.
I also think it is important to distinguish between anonymous and pseudonymous blogging. While complete anonymity may enable someone to evade any accountability for intemperate or unwise remarks, the creation and maintenance of a pseudonym can have a disciplining effect on blogger behavior, and thus should be encouraged as an alternative to purely anonymous blogging and posting.
This seems to be the prevailing opinion around the blogosphere. Jonah Goldberg (half) agrees:
I think the answer to this question depends entirely on the conduct of the anonyblogger. It seems counter-intuitive to bullies and cowards who like the idea of sticking pins in voodoo dolls from a safe distance, but anonyblogging requires more politeness and decency even though it liberates you to use less. If you are honest, fair-minded, and polite I think people should probably respect your anonymity. If you play fast and loose with the truth and are altogether a shabby person, I am at a loss as to why everyone should respect your desire to hurl insults and brickbats from the safety of anonymity. The expectation of anonymity strikes me as a classic example of a privilege, not a right.
To make things clear, I agree with Goldberg and furthermore believe that our pseudonymous bloggers are paragons of decency. In fact, I choose to use my real name because I fear that, unlike them, I would misuse the cover of a pseudonym. I say enough terrible things about people as it is.
The question is: Does a pseudonymous blogger have a right to his cover? If he does, is there some line of conduct beyond which he forfeits that right?
[This post was written yesterday, and Ed Whelan has since apologized to publius for exposing his identity.]
I am apologizing both for disclosing his identity and for making harsh statements about Publius in the course of doing so. In stating that my apology is “completely apart from any debate over our respective rights,” I am apologizing for my conduct whether or not, in some abstract sense, I had a “right” to do what I did. In other words, I am acknowledging that I had a duty to be charitable to Publius (because a human being is beneath the pseudonym) and that I violated that duty.
The question remains, though. Are there circumstances where it would be right to “out” a blogger? Does a pseudonymous blogger have a “right” to conceal his identity?
I blog under a pseudonym and I don’t feel cowardly about it at all. It’s a prudent safeguard I take in order to protect my livelihood (and to also protect my employer from any views I may express which may he may feel reflect badly).
Surely there are times when “outing” someone is proper (making threats of violence for example), but Whelen was really out of line here. Obviously his apologizing shows that he understands that now but it’s too little too late.
As to your question, I don’t know if I have a right to my anonymity, but it just seems to me that honoring it is the right (polite/civil/whatever)thing to do unless some special circumstance as I noted above applies. Simply disagreeing with each other isn’t enough.
And screw all of you who disagree with me. For I am anonymous and therefore you cannot find me and punch me in the nose.
(Okay,I was kidding . . . no need to track me down . . . seriously . . . forget I ever said anything . . . please)
I used to help on a website and we had trolls and people hiding their identitys under assumed names. We would figure it out based on location and their IP’s. However they could never quite let it go and would appear with flipped IPS and different names. There was one who actually ended up being the owner of a website. She was pretending to be someone she was not and she was caught red handed. Did we out her? Yeah we did. This is a 46 year old woman trolling, pretending to be different person and posting under pseudonames to cause pain and suffering and plain trouble out of a malicious sense of entitlement and jealousy. Wanna know why I wouldn’t get involved with that crap again? Most of the girls linked to fandom behave MUCH THE SAME WAY! It makes my skin crawl.
There are no “rights” to concealing one’s identity. Given how easy it is to find just about any information on the internet these days, I think it’s foolish for somebody to imagine her secret identity to be safe. OTOH, I think it’s a pretty clear sign of desperation to out someone’s identity — rather akin to a corollary of Godwin’s Law, almost, a last-ditch nuclear option when you can’t figure out any other way to argue back. Even so, despite its air of desperation, I’m not sure it’s wrong in all cases to do so. Am I sounding confused? Hmm.
Of course, I never understood how people can be so cavalier about typing out statements they would never ever utter directly to a person’s face. Doesn’t the Golden Rule and general rules of civility apply as much to virtual interactions as they do in brick-and-mortar life? But somehow, a lot of folks haven’t figured out that those aren’t Sim algorithms on the other end of the computer connection, but rather a real life person.
I guess there sometimes comes a point where a person can be sick to death of someone else’s assholery. The difference between, say, me, and someone like Ed Whelan is that, once I got fed up with (for example) Andrew Sullivan’s ranting, all I had to do was stop reading his posts. But Whelan is in the business of opining, and (like Sam Spade avenging Miles Archer’s death), it isn’t good for business to let others get away with trashing you and your opinions. I guess he figured he’d been backed into a corner by Publius.
Rufus here; Nobody puts Publius in a corner.
The problem is that some people get it into their little minds that hiding behind a pseudonym (like I do) makes them invulnerable, and that others have some sort of obligation to aid and abet in that hiding. When exactly did it become an ethical obligation to help someone be an antisocial jerk?
I started using this name back in the Usenet days of the late 80s when I realized that there were a lot of creeps out there I just didn’t want to hear from. By not publicizing an email address that worked, I forced people who’d send abusive emails to say it publicly, or not at all. I’ve made no attempt to hide my identity (no anonymizers, or relays, etc.) I assume anyone with access to this website’s logs can figure out who I really am from my IP address. Over the years I’ve only a couple of times said things I shouldn’t have, and apologized for them.
And considering how the Left now believes that “outing” people with whom they have any sort of disagreement is their duty, I can’t work up much sympathy for this publius guy. Welcome to the world you helped create. Think of yourself as collateral damage. (And in Leftworld, isn’t being a victim the ultimate virtue?)
I, Rufus T. Firefly, think anyone who blogs under a pseudonym is a panty-waist, unfit for life on these here internets. Furthermore, I, Rufus T. Firefly vow to ridicule and mock anyone not man (or woman) enough to blog using his, or her own name. Those who use nomme de plumes, however, shall be spared, and the same goes for nommes de guerre.
Tough question. Sometimes a pseudonym is necessary because of retaliation (just look at the lengths the anti-prop 8 crowd have gone to harass pro-voters). Posting online with your personal information can be dangerous. On the other hand, a big part of the incivility we see online is due to anonymity. But I think that as long as your online communications does not consist of libelous or slanderous content, a pseudonym is perfectly acceptable and even advisable.
A true statement and a reason to blog anonymously. As someone who comments under a pseudonym (I am not a suit wearing, gun weilding monkey) but registers under an email address that pretty much reveals who I am, there is a certain amount of trust one puts in the owners of blogs and other related sites. One does not have a “right” to be anonymous.
I think Jonah Goldberg strikes the right chord though, a privlage not a right. And that under some circumstances it is alright to out someone, so to speak. Reading some of the back and forth of Publius, I cannot honestly say it qualifies, but Publius was certainly pushing the boundry and I don’t think Whelan should have apologized.
“I am not a suit wearing, gun weilding monkey”
NOOOO!!!
“I am not a suit wearing, gun wielding monkey”
Alas, another fantasy shattered.
Crap, am I the only one who’s not a pseudonym?
You’re from Texas… isn’t really “Tracy” with two “ee”s… Tracee? and it sounds like you have two too many kids instead of “to many”. We don’t even know who you are. You are like Garbo to us. (Keep me off the list Zoon!)
Hey, it only felt like 2 too many when they first told us of the second set of twins, but we are used to them now. Besides, tomany was taken.
I had a friend try to come up with different ways to spell my name to annoy me. My favorite was Tray-see. “Floyd”
I’m not, really. Just a different form of my real name, and the numbers are meaningful to me, anyway. My pic is, however not me, but someone much older and more well seasoned than I.
Ok, I’m not really Andy. I really am an old lady who lives in a shoe.
This is totally me, only my hair is longer since this was taken. And I’ve gained some (a lot of) weight (for a good reason). Maybe I should go back to wearing contacts so people won’t recognize me on the street. Because I say such inflammatory things all the time, doncha know.
I know, Stacie. You really should watch all the cursing and ranting and whatnot.
This is really one of those areas where the internet is like the Wild West. The only justice is vigilante justice, and the only police force is the posse.
At the risk of appearing crass….. here’s number 5.
Two were on the same post, Fritz. That’s kind of like medaling at the Special Olympics.
OK…So no Alfie. I understand. You and Floyd just can’t give ‘em out to everyone. So now I’m “special.” I get it.
I have nothing to do with awarding Alfies. I know almost nothing about the inner mechanizations of this site. JohnFN promises to some day show me how to put those cute smiley faces at the end of my posts.