On Anonymous & Pseudonymous Blogging
Tags: anonymous blogging, blogs, Ed Whalen, Ed Whelan, James Joyner, pseudonymous blogging, Rick Moran, Robert Stacy McCain.
Click here to get Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority by Matt Margolis and Mark Noonan.
There’s a lot of chatter going on in the blogosphere right about anonymous and pseudonymous blogging and whether or not it is right to out a pseudonymous blogger.
Yesterday, Ed Whelan of Bench Memos outed an pseudonymous blogger (who blogged under the name “Publius”) who he felt crossed a line with a personal attack.
Several bloggers I know and respect have weighed in on the appropriateness of this action.
Had Publius published Ed’s personal information, or had slandered him factually, I could understand the need to make his identity public and force him to bear responsibility for such attacks. However, as Rick says, calling someone a “know-nothing demagogue” doesn’t qualify. It may be annoying, and I think it reflects very poorly on Publius, but that’s the kind of ad hominem attack bloggers get from Day One. Truman’s Axiom comes into play here — if a blogger can’t take that kind of heat, he ought to reconsider blogging.
While I generally find the practice of revealing people’s secrets to the public distasteful, there are times when it’s appropriate. Public officials who are abusing their power is the most obvious case. Here, however, there is no public benefit achieved. Whelan is simply annoyed that Publius had been “biting at my ankles in recent months” and critiquing his blog posts.
The point is, there are a lot of good reasons for bloggers to remain anonymous and Ed Whalen has no right to decide differently just because he got steamed about someone’s response to his analysis. Did Publius commit a crime? Was he slandering Whalen? If not, Whalen’s fit of personal pique looks low, tawdry, childish, and vengeful. The closest Publius got to getting personal with Whelan was in calling him a “know-nothing demagogue.” And this was after making the point that Whelan knew better and was simply pandering to conservative sensibilities.
The “no harm, no foul” principle might apply to this situation. Whelan blogs under his own name and felt that he was being abused by the anonymous “Publius.” The fact that “Publius” was relatively obscure — I’m not into legal blogging, and have seldom read Obsidian Wings — might make Whelan’s “outing” of him seem an overreaction. But I don’t presume to judge what is or is not abuse of another. If Blevins is harmed by his “outing,” he ought to be able to demonstrate (not merely assert) that harm.
Personally, this issue is a tough one for me. I have been blogging since 2003, and from day one under by real name. Sometimes the price you pay to blog openly with your own identity is high. At one point, I was convinced my blogging actually had a negative impact on my job search when I was unemployed a few years ago. I have gotten anonymous phone calls and threats. I’ve had property vandalized. There is a price to pay by putting your political views out in the open, and that price is gets even bigger when you are more successful — which changes everything. Of course, it was too late for me to change my mind at that point.
I know bloggers who blog under pseudonyms, and that is their choice. I am well aware of the risks involved of blogging under your own name/identity, and don’t blame any blogger for choosing to avoid all the crap you inevitably have to put up with when you reach a level of notoriety in the blogosphere.
That being said, I completely understand the frustration of being attacked by anonymous commenters and bloggers, who, from where you stand, aren’t willing to put their own reputations at risk when they publish their words to the internet. It is a lot easier to make baseless, personal attacks on another blogger when you are anonymous, than when you go by your own name. The main reason is accountability. For everything I blog, here or elsewhere, I am accountable for every single word. Anonymous and pseudonymous bloggers aren’t so much. With that knowledge, I can understand Ed Whelan’s actions.
For what it is worth, liberal bloggers, who have been expressing outrage over Whelan’s actions, have a history of exposing details of the private lives of Republicans, Of course, two wrongs don’t make a right, but a double standard is nothing short of hypocrisy.
We belittle news stories that rely on anonymous sources because anonymous sources (and the reporters who keep relying on them) aren’t to be trusted, for a variety of reasons. Similarly, we have every reason to be skeptical of anonymous bloggers, and have every reason to feel angry when they hide behind a wall of anonymity while erroneously trashing our reputations.
I use a lot of restraint when dealing with bloggers who attack me and/or my positions. I prefer not to get into sophomoric back-and-forths, and to the best of my abilities avoid them by ignoring bloggers who feel personal attacks are a viable substitute for reasoned debate.
Ed Whelan explained his actions thusly:
Law professor John Blevins (aka publius) and others seem to assume that I owed some sort of obligation to Blevins not to expose his pseudonymous blogging. I find this assumption baffling. A blogger may choose to blog under a pseudonym for any of various self-serving reasons, from the compelling (e.g., genuine concerns about personal safety) to the respectable to the base. But setting aside the extraordinary circumstances in which the reason to use a pseudonym would be compelling, I don’t see why anyone else has any obligation to respect the blogger’s self-serving decision. And I certainly don’t see why someone who has been smeared by the blogger and frequently had his positions and arguments misrepresented should be expected to do so.
Blevins desired to be unaccountable—irresponsible—for the views he set forth in the blogosphere. He wanted to present one face to his family, friends, and colleagues and another to the blogosphere. That’s understandable but hardly deserving of respect. If he wanted to avoid the risk of being associated publicly with his views, he shouldn’t have blogged. It’s very strange that angry lefties are calling me childish (and much worse) when it’s Blevins who was trying to avoid responsibility for his blogging. (Law professor Michael Krauss has a good post on the matter.)
Sure, anonymous and pseudonymous bloggers have legitimate concerns for not using their real names. The blogger Ed Whelan outed, gave several “private and professional reasons”:
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).
Well, we all have similar risks. My political views have strained and/or ended friendships, caused tension or discomfort in the workplace, and have been the source many arguments at family gatherings. But, bloggers who make the choice to remain anonymous ought to respect bloggers who, for one reason or another, don’t have the luxury of anonymity, and give them the courtesy of refraining from personal attacks they themselves are immune to.
It is not my place to say whether Whelan’s actions were appropriate or not. To me, this situation underscores the point that anonymous and pseudonymous bloggers are not playing on a level playing field as bloggers who stake their name and reputations on their published words on a daily basis. And when the latter feels slighted by the former, it’s not unreasonable for them to want to level that playing field.
UPDATE: More from Don Surber…
UPDATE II: More links and reactions via Joe Gandelman…
UPDATE III: Blogger Simon Owens spoke to both Whelan and Blevins…
Thank you for visiting Blogs For Victory. If you enjoy our content, please consider making a donation to help us cover the costs of our servers.Matt Margolis is co-author (with Mark Noonan) of Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority. He also blogs at The Buffalo Bean. Follow Matt on Twitter.
20 Responses to “On Anonymous & Pseudonymous Blogging”
Caucus of Corruption
Whelan’s actions were wholly appropriate.
There is too much hiding behind anonymous monikers purely for the purpose of launching blistering personal insults at people, and it’s even prevalent among a few notable commentors on this blog. It’s another part of the western culture (and I’m not just talking about the American continent here) which has been allowing individuals to disconnect from their personal responsibilities.
I believe that anyone who just uses the internet for throwing blind insults at other people deserves to be outed. There is a place for discussion, even heated discussion. There is a place for debate. There is no place for purely using the blogosphere as a forum to insult and abuse ad hoc anyone who you happen to have a difference of opinion with.
Having said that, I would also add that this does place a duty on blog owners and moderators to wield the banhammer where necessary on abusers. It can be as bad to refuse to take action against someone, thereby by inaction encouraging the hate speech, as it can to simply ban a person for having a difference of opinion. Both are misuses of moderation privileges.
There is no place for purely using the blogosphere as a forum to insult and abuse ad hoc anyone who you happen to have a difference of opinion with.
Looks like you’re suggesting that Mark/Matt ban anyone who insults you, AF.
It can be as bad to refuse to take action against someone, thereby by inaction encouraging the hate speech, as it can to simply ban a person for having a difference of opinion. Both are misuses of moderation privileges.
Hate speech is a subjective term, AF. You troll pukes would have me, cluster, js, and especially fmr, banned for what you term “hate speech,” just because we forcefully voice our opposition to certain issues you troll pukes find “sensitive.”
This is one of the many reasons I like being in England. While yes, they do have socialised medicine, and a lot of loons of their own, they don’t yet subscribe to all this political correctness you see pushed on us in the U.S., mostly by hypocrites who use PC when they deem fit for their agenda.
I, fmr, js, cluster, and others feel that Mark should’ve banned a lot of you troll puke lemmigs long ago, just because you all, for the most part, come here to gloat because your idols are running the show. Hey, it happened to me in ‘04, right after President Bush defeated ol’ Spitball. I was banned from a blog, for gloating, and was told “We don’t need your hate around here.” I was once suspended from Spitball’s web for using the term “liberal.” I was banned from another lefty blog, primarily for gays, for making a mild joke.
You troll pukes get away with far more than what I’ve been banned for. Matt and Mark are very tolerant. You ought to appreciate them for this, and take your lumps, from the attack dog, or you ought to leave. Dammit to hell, it wouldn’t break my heart to never read your drivel, or that of bloch/pain/lead/cav, CO, joBo, cam, minnow, and others, ever again. But so be it: you’re here, you’re stupid, and you’re staying. Enjoy!!!
LuvRu5:
Socialized medicine… you win! I was going to take you down a notch, then you noted how you live in a benevolent, compassionate, intelligent country that realizes the moral imperative of providing medical care as a matter of human decency and not based on one’s ability to generate profits.
You win. You ARE smarter than me.
Wasn’t it just a few years ago that some psycho liberal Prof from Arizona threatened a blog owner and his child or children? Last year my state brought criminal charges against a lawyer for terroristic threats via email. This liberal lawyer had to stand trial and was convicted. One of the better laws now on our books in my state is any death threat or terroristic threat via blogs, email, or chat venues is met with prosection. This law may not set well with the supposed anonymity of the internet, but times have changed…911 saw to that.
Opinions are one thing, death threats are quite another. Out the bloggers and publish their names. They are responsible for their actions.
You win. You ARE smarter than me.
This is a given, joBo–you’re a lock-step liberal puke.
Yeah, they’re very compassionate indeed–just check out some of the waiting lists…
One of the better laws now on our books in my state is any death threat or terroristic threat via blogs, email, or chat venues is met with prosection…uffy
——————————————————–
I don’t think you will get much opposition to that statement from anyone, uffy.
We’ve seen good example of the benefits of laws such as this with the recent arrest of Daniel James Murray.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2009/06/06/2009-06-06_man_who_threatened_to_.htm
I glad to see we are on the same page on this issue, uffy.
I think Cap’n Ed (aka Ed Morrissey) said it about right: “Outing Publius didn’t do anything to advance Ed’s argument, but made him look vindictive and petty instead. ”
That’s essentially what I think of ad-hominem attacks in general. They don’t do anything to advance the dialog (in fact, they do more to shut it down), and they tend to debase the attacker more than the attacked.
Perhaps it should also be noted that Whalan took the action he did not because of something “Publius” said on Whelan’s blog, but on “Publius’s” own blog. That makes it an awfully big can of worms. What’s he going to do — publish personal information on anyone who says anything he doesn’t like anywhere it’s said? Why can’t he just stop going to the offending site?
Oops, sorry, joBo; I misidentified you as the idiot bozo…
CO: Yeah, he was a typical guy……..couldn’t keep his mouth shut. Reminds ya of Biden doesn’t it?
I have a confession to make, and I think it’s appropriate to make it on this thread: My real name is Tony Clifton.
@Luv:
No. Insults I can take. I have a moderately thick skin – you have to have, to be in any kind of law enforcement. But there’s a difference between insulting someone and hate speech. Do YOU know that difference? I think I do.
Again, you’re projecting. Extra points for using the term “pukes” by the way, that’s real classy. Like I said there is a place for discussion, debate, even heated debate. There is a difference between classifying anyone who you dislike as “troll pukes”, which is uncouth, distasteful but hardly hateful, and deliberately singling out someone to call a “feminazi dyke”. That’s a deliberate hateful attack, those are words chosen specifically to hurt and to attack.
Enjoy your time in England. I lived there for 35 years so I know what it’s like. I also worked for the “socialised medicine” system you talk of, I was a front line paramedic first responder with Gloucester and Avon NHS Trust. And no, they don’t allow half of the lies and distortions the American system uses. They also sensor some content that goes out uncensored on Fox in the US (Fox is, I believe, still predominantly on Sky TV over there, unless things have changed).
Surely that says more about you than it does about me. I don’t want you banned. JS and Cluster sometimes push the envelope a bit but not enough for me to ever want them banned. Jeremiah says a lot I don’t agree with (and sometimes surprises me with thing I never knew I agreed with until he mentioned them) but even if I don’t agree with him, that’s what democracy is all about; I certainly don’t want him banned. I only call for Fmr to be banned because of his consistent crossing the line into hate speech. YOU try having your husband/wife insulted, being told you’re a “feminazi dyke” and see if you don’t find it hateful.
It is my experience that homosexual and gay groups as a whole tend to be far more sensitive to terms they find distasteful as other demographic groups.
Matt particularly points out with this post that – like me – he believes in tolerance. He believes in accommodating opposite opinions… but again, those have to be actually opinions rather than abusive posts that don’t in any way contribute to any threads.
I have no doubt that Matt, Mark and I could sit at the same table over drinks and have a lively conversation without it ending in a shouting match or worse. I doubt any of us could change any other of us’ opinions, but the point is I don’t want to or threaten to go and smash Matt or Mark’s face in if they say anything I don’t like or don’t agree with. I don’t advocate violence, I don’t advocate lawbreaking and I’m willing to listen even if I don’t like what I hear because that’s how democracy works.
Likewise. Agreeing to disagree is also part of how democracy works.
@fmr:
Oh? Why would that be? I have been courteous to most people, sharp with others but have always made sure I never cross the line into hateful. I’ve also tried to make sure that when I comment it has relevance to the thread instead of just hurling insults. Again, there is a huge difference between being upset and angry and sharp at disagreeing and downright hateful speech. “Liberal Puke” is distasteful, angry and sharp. “Feminazi Dyke” is hateful.
Come on, I’m not giving lessons to ten year olds. You all KNOW this, you’re old enough and worldly wise enough to know the difference between hate speech and distasteful insults. All you have to do is exercise a little self-control when you write.
…and deliberately singling out someone to call a “feminazi dyke”. That’s a deliberate hateful attack, those are words chosen specifically to hurt and to attack.
Sorry, AF, it’s not “hate speech” to me.
And no, they don’t allow half of the lies and distortions the American system uses. They also sensor some content that goes out uncensored on Fox in the US (Fox is, I believe, still predominantly on Sky TV over there, unless things have changed).
What lies and distortions? If you’re talking about the media, well, the Brits have their own lies and distortions. It’s called the BBC. And they do not censor FOX News on Sky…
Sorry, AF, it’s not “hate speech” to me…keefer
——————————————————-
What would you personally consider to be “hate speech”?
I am not asking for a dictionary definition, keefer, just your honest opinion of what constitutes the act in your own heart and mind.
Hey, guys and gals, lets all just mellow out a bit here…remember, we’re all just people…
Ricorun,
Cripes! That makes me your father….’s brother’s cousin’s uncle’s college room mate!
For the record I, Tony Clifton (aka Elvis, etc.), have been known to pee on campfires both multiply and severally. Assuming anyone is interested (and I would hate to think anyone is), these days it smells like burnt squash and cactus, owing to the fact that our garden of late has been pumping out zucchini and nopale like crazy — oh, and arugula, endive, raddichio, mustard greens, and dandelion, too — and to a lesser extent (so far) kumquats, plums, lemons, limes, strawberries, and just about any herb you might name (except catnip; our cat TC will just have to find his own dealer).
That makes me your father….’s brother’s cousin’s uncle’s college room mate!
+10 points for the Spaceballs reference.
@fmr:
Note the word irresponsible in that sentence. As in, rapists and the like. People who cause unwanted babies, that your side does not want to allow to be aborted but isn’t lining up to adopt.
How is that any worse than forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy that could put her life at risk to term? How is chemical castration any worse than forcing a woman to look after and bring up a child she’s not ready for or wanting if she’s been raped?
But those are generalizations. In this very thread you’ve been asking for my personal details – and let’s recap:
I told you my job – you insulted me over it (and again in this thread)
I told you I was married – you continue to call me a dyke and when I revealed that I was in fact happily married (in the traditional sense of the word) you insulted my husband.
I told you I was female, and you call me feminazi.
What the hell makes you think I’m about to provide you with even more ammunition to attack me with personally?
You obviously can’t tell the difference between what Matt was writing about and attacking anyone you don’t like, and you’ve demonstrated that in this thread better than ANY accusation I might make against you directly.
Even more from Joe Gandelman. I do have one small bone to pick, however. He includes in his latest column a PS: I will now reveal that I write under the silly name “Joe Gandelman” when my real name is Elvis…
Everyone knows Elvis is really Tony Clifton, who is really me. GANDELMAN’S LYING! He needs to be exposed, lol!