On Saturday morning, Ed Whelan sent an e-mail to John Blevins that read, in its entirety:
I am reliably informed that you use the pseudonym publius to blog at Obsidian Wings. Please confirm or deny.
A few hours later, Blevins responded:
I am not commenting on my identity. For a variety of private, family, and professional reasons, I write under a psuedonym. If I wanted to publicly disclose my name, I would do so.
A few hours after that, Whelan e-mailed Blevins, calling him a "coward," and posted "Exposing an Irresponsible Anonymous Blogger," in which he outed the "publius" who posts at Obsidian Wings as "law professor John F. Blevins of the South Texas College of Law."
Hmmmmmm.
Hmmmmmm.
Apparently in this particular case of uber-meta, it concerned the Sotomayor nomination: publius had been criticizing Ed Whelan, a former official in the Bush Administration.
What do some formerly pseudonymous posters who are now known have to say about the idea of posting undercover? [All bolding and italicization is mine, with the exception of the words "self-serving" in Ed Whelan's post.]
Juan Non-Volck [aka Jonathan Adler]:
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.
Who knew?
Ed Morrisey [under the non-controversial title "Poll: When is it OK to "out" anonymous bloggers?"]:
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.
Ed's a great blogger, but I think he let Publius get too far under his skin, and he reacted poorly in outing someone and risking their professional career. Outing Publius didn't do anything to advance Ed's argument, but made him look vindictive and petty instead. Bloggers should worry less about the anonymity of bloggers (which isn't a "bane" at all) and respond to the arguments instead - or ignore them.
At the end of the article, Juan Non-Volck weighs in again:
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. Reputation effects and the desire to maintain readership can impose significant discipline. A pseudonym operates like a brand name, and the value of the brand is, at least in part, a function of how the pseudonymous blogger acts over time. This disciplining effect is hardly perfect, however, particularly when it comes to maintaining civility. . . . I believe this means that those who utilize pseudonyms should take greater responsibility for the tone and content of their own posts so their pseudonymous shield does not become a license for nastiness and snark (and I hope I was able to do this when I used a pseudonym). But I also believe that, barring exceptional circumstances (e.g. something far worse than wrong-headed criticism) other bloggers should respect the choice of others to rely upon pseudonyms.
Good points, all - though, really: What's a little snark among friends? Perhaps over-inflated egos might stretch the skin too thin that it might burst under the slings and arrows of outrageous 4chan?
On a blog at National Review, Mr. Whelan, who exposed publius' name, responds, attempting to turn it into a conservative vs. liberal issue (is it?):
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.
.....
When Blevins sent me an e-mail refusing my request that he confirm or deny that he was publius, I responded with a private e-mail, which Blevins himself has made public, that bluntly called him a "coward and idiot." I do believe that Blevins's conduct was cowardly. I regret, however, that I was intemperate and hyperbolic in my disparagement of Blevins's intellect, and I hereby apologize to him for that portion of my comment.
Hmmmmmm.
Hmmmmmm.
Law professor Michael Krauss of the Manhattan Institute weighs in:
On the substantive debate between Blevins and Whelan, I think Whelan easily has the upper hand, but readers can decide this for themselves. On the propriety of hiding behind a pseudonym while sniping at a critic who is out in the open, I see no redeeming argument. I hope the South Texas tenure committee is watching and taking note.
So, there we have it. Again. Writ large. Or small, as you choose. The same meta arguments, similar sides.
What say you? |
