Hey Publius, sorry about revealing your identity
Ed Whelan of National Review got angry at heated criticism from a liberal blogger who goes by the name Publius. So on Saturday Whelan revealed his identity. You can read the discussion, including Whelan’s defense of his act, and find links to some conservative responses to the ethical question of when it’s okay to reveal an anonymous blogger’s identity — at HotAir.
Tonight Whelan apologized. Of course the damage has already been done.
I’ve learned to regret those times when I hit the [SEND] button after writing a comment composed in anger.
Whelan’s good people. I don’t agree with his action in outing the dude — but on the other hand, it’s unfair for anonycowards to stand behind the veil of anonymity to lob personal insults at people with names. So excuse me if I save the tears for someone who deserves them more.
Also, Tom Boggioni is an asshole. It needed to be said.
Comment by Patterico — 6/9/2009 @ 12:06 am
It’s very interesting how the responses on this shake out. There are exceptions, but for the most part, anonybloggers think Whelan did wrong, whereas many (not all) bloggers who use their real names don’t care.
People like me who are pseudonymous (but barely so) can see both sides. I see wanting to remain anonymous because of the crazies. I also see a cowardice in those who get personal and use their anonymity as a weapon.
Also, Tom Boggioni is still an asshole.
Comment by Patterico — 6/9/2009 @ 12:12 am
I just don’t want 1:00 a.m. phone calls, from people who did not like a comment I left and know about Yahoo’s People Search. And my name is not all that uncommon and 100 or so other innocents might get those calls, too.
I supposed I could go around calling myself Nestor Kowalski. (No! That’s not my name but who would know?) Instead, I established a consistent online identity. I started a blogspot, which I link to on every comment I leave, and always use nk as my signature.
Comment by nk — 6/9/2009 @ 4:52 am
Whether I am Cleopatra, the last Ptolemy, reincarnated as a big brown dog, is a different question.
Comment by nk — 6/9/2009 @ 4:54 am
Personally, I like using PCD instead of my real name. I don’t hide that I’m PCD. For those wondering, PCD stands for Packer City Dan. I got tired of typing that on TalkSpot when that was alive and James “Bo Snerdley” Golden was running the site.
There are times Liberal donkeys need to be outted to shock them into reasonable behavior.
Comment by PCD — 6/9/2009 @ 5:09 am
NK: right. I’ve been aphrael in various online fora since 1992; it’s as much my identity as my real name.
I’m glad Ed Whelan eventually apologized, but what can it be done at this point? The damage has been done.
Comment by aphrael — 6/9/2009 @ 8:30 am
As about the only guy around these parts who isn’t too much of a pansy to use my real name (I’m kidding… I only think Aph is a pansy
), I’d like to think I have a different take on this than most.
I think what Ed did was flat out wrong, and after years of seeing such apologies, I can only conclude that Ed, like most, is only apologizing because it seems the thing to do. Publius has accepted the apology, but to me it smacks of “Well shit, better say something pretty or else a bunch of people will continue to be pissed off at me”. I mean, how many around here could throw together a pretty-sounding pile of words that sounds good, but yet don’t mean anything at the end of the day.
“I’m sorry I got caught” isn’t an apology, and neither is Ed’s.
I had a lot of respect for Ed, and this whole thing ruined that. What he did was equally as cowardly as anonyblogging, probably more so.
It wasn’t Ed’s call to make, even if he was taking very heated criticism. Would he have outted Iowahawk if HE decided to lay into him?
Bottom line is that what Ed did was wrong, and he knew it was wrong when he did it. “I was really mad when I did it” isn’t a valid defense for anything, and in the end that’s all Ed’s defense is. He was mad, and he thus acted like a complete and utter douchebag.
Was Publius out of line in his criticisms? Doesn’t matter. Much like the drug dealer who gets gunned down standing on his street corner, the quality of the person who was wronged doesn’t matter beside the fact that someone killed him.
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 6/9/2009 @ 8:50 am
Scott,
Just to be a jerk, BUT what if the drug dealer standing on the street corner was reloading his gun when he was shot down?
Comment by PCD — 6/9/2009 @ 10:15 am
Unless he shot first, then the killer needs to be found, prosecuted, and locked up.
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 6/9/2009 @ 10:34 am
Scott:
I’m kind of with you. I think it was more of a real apology than you do, but it was the wrong thing to do. Insult me and get outed? Eh.
As I’ve said before, no one could ever figure out who I was unless they had internet access. It still seems rude.
I can see situations where outing would be appropriate:
1. Sock puppetry.
2. Fakery of views – if Sarah Palin were posting as HillaryGirl16 trying to get her elected in the last Democratic primary, that’d be relevant.
3. Certain types of hypocrisy by people in substantial power. This would be rare.
4. Actual criminal conduct. “Let’s all get together and beat up Jeff Flake for voting no on spending! Here’s where his kids go to school,” – you’re out.
I’m probably missing some scenarios, but I otherwise think outing is rude. Not criminal, not litigatable, but rude. Violators should receive some social blowback.
–JRM
Comment by JRM — 6/9/2009 @ 10:36 am
This would be pretty different if the prof were likely to face some real-life blowback from this. But even he says that seems unlikely.
If he were a conservative, he’d be more at risk, what with academia being the way it is and all.
Comment by Patterico — 6/9/2009 @ 6:22 pm
So that makes it ok? Ed gets a complete pass because, well, it wasn’t one of US he outed, so forgive and forget?
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 6/9/2009 @ 8:28 pm
Well, it’s just a nuisance filter, in truth, Scott.
Comment by nk — 6/9/2009 @ 8:49 pm
And if this were my site I would ban you for something you said earlier on this thread.
Comment by nk — 6/9/2009 @ 8:51 pm
So that makes it ok? Ed gets a complete pass because, well, it wasn’t one of US he outed, so forgive and forget?
Who said that? I said I don’t agree with what he did; he recognizes it was wrong and has apologized; nobody is saying it’s fine and dandy. But it’s not the same as if someone were outed who would face real consequences.
Comment by Patterico — 6/9/2009 @ 10:54 pm
One thing that bothers me is the idea that it is alright to be anonymous to do thing the anonymous person knows is wrong such as constant lying, passing fake but accurate documents like the faked Obama birth certificate as the genuine article,…
Comment by PCD — 6/10/2009 @ 5:25 am
Interesting perceptions of Whelan’s apology. I thought it rang true, had a good dose of humility as well as him seeming to be fully and painfully aware that the damage was indeed already done. A lot of people make bad decisions when they’re angry or their egos are involved. Too bad when the Submit button is involved.
Comment by Dana — 6/10/2009 @ 5:00 pm
Yeah, I’m streaming “Red River”.
Comment by nk who will call himself Nadine Groot for a while — 6/19/2009 @ 7:01 pm
Groot Nadine aka The State of Groot.
Comment by DRJ — 6/21/2009 @ 9:22 pm