On one of my favorite topics, anonymous blogging -- James Joyner (via Glenn) is unhappy with one particular bit of outage: While I generally find the practice of revealing people's secrets to the public distasteful, there are times when......

As an example, my employer fired a small group of Christians who shared a few encouraging words every morning via the company's email system.

Under what grounds were these people fired? If it was for this reason, that seems to me to be grossly unfair and probably illegal...didn't they try to seek legal recourse?

I have no animosity towards anyone who I disagree with, but my experience with those on the other side is quite different. They have enormous ill-will towards me and they have expressed it hundreds of times.

That "enormous ill-will" is hardly unique to one side of the political spectrum...people from either side can feel/act that way...

At the same time, I was employed by a very liberal company. As an example, my employer fired a small group of Christians who shared a few encouraging words every morning via the company's email system. The Christians never attempted to recruit people into their ideology or spam anyone, but just kept to themselves with the short email.

The same company contributed $2 million a year to the Gay, Lesbian and Transgender group that also used the company email system. Those folks were not fired, and instead, allowed to make politically-charged speeches in group meetings.

In an environment like this, with an obvious employer bias, you can imagine the result of my being 'outed.' There is absolutely no doubt that I would have immediately lost my job.

I have no animosity towards anyone who I disagree with, but my experience with those on the other side is quite different. They have enormous ill-will towards me and they have expressed it hundreds of times.

If a blogger is sticking to the facts and sticking to reliable public information, then they should be able to maintain their animosity. If they engage in contrived information, hear-say and conjecture, and present these as facts, maybe they should be exposed. The court of public opinion will never find consensus on this topic.

It still comes down to an immunity from consequences on the part of Blevins that Whalen does not share. Let's assume for the sake of discussion, that this situation never occurred, and rather that someone levels a suit against Whalen for something he's said. regardless who defends him, he himself or some group or other, he still faces direct consequences for his words and his positions taken. Not so for Blevins, assuming his anonymity is intact.

By posting as an associate, he is "by definition" a part of those organizations and they would be more likely to be liable for his postings (see CDA section 230).

Complicating that concept is the idea that the website isn't part of EPPI, though i can understand the more direct connection to NRO.... Though I don't think the case to be enough to mount legal proceedings, I also don't think we can take as a given that they'd legally defend him in that situation.

And I fail to see any significance in the groups that Whalen is connected to, unless you're going to suggest that these would protect him in a legal situation resulting from a disagreement between them, something I must say I highly doubt.

Um, there's where you're wrong. By posting as an associate, he is "by definition" a part of those organizations and they would be more likely to be liable for his postings (see CDA section 230).

You ignore the point to glom onto a secondary issue.

Can only people who have similar backing "attack" Whelan? Is that right? IIRC, publius did not engage in a lot of ad hominem. I mean, he could have called whelan an ass, or someone who has the mind of a 12-year-old. But he didn't. If I read the posts correctly, he said that whelan *acted like* someone who was an attack dog.

While ignoring the attack dog nature of his own writings, while hiding behind anonymity.

And I fail to see any significance in the groups that Whalen is connected to, unless you're going to suggest that these would protect him in a legal situation resulting from a disagreement between them, something I must say I highly doubt.

Hell, I've bounced off Whalen a couple times over the years, too... but using my real name, and subjecting myself to the consequences of those statements.

It's 2:30 am on the morning of World Oceans Day, as I sit here drowning in a sea of submissions for Blawg Review #215. Buoy, I'm in trouble, with a sinking feeling about all I have yet to do. But......

So, explain to us where the ethics are that allow "Publius" to attack Whelan without being directly connected to his words and the consequences of them, while Whealan is not only dealing with the attack, but is also directly connected to his own words and their consequences?

I'll try as best I can. Whelan is supported by at least two organizations that are well-funded (NRO and the [wrongly named, imho] Ethics and Public Policy Institute).

Can only people who have similar backing "attack" Whelan? Is that right? IIRC, publius did not engage in a lot of ad hominem. I mean, he could have called whelan an ass, or someone who has the mind of a 12-year-old. But he didn't. If I read the posts correctly, he said that whelan *acted like* someone who was an attack dog.

If publius called whelan a dick or some such, then I'd see the point. As it was, it seemed like publius went out of his way to establish that whelan had bona fides.

Am I missing something here?

Rather, it seemed that Whelan was the one being petulant and childish.

If you're going to "man up," as seems to be the meme du jour, then it seems that "manning up" means not listening, or not engaging with, pseudonymous bloggers.

Rather than dealing with the substance, it seems Whelan was deflecting by delving into the pseudonymous nature of the criticisms. I'd rather he just dealt with substance.

If publius is wrong, then he's wrong on merits. His *name* and *real identity* have absolutely nothing to do with the issue of sotomayor.

To get back to the "ethics" argument, it should be obvious that the ethical thing to do would be to deal with the arguments, not the person. And, fwiw, Whelan's dealing with pseudonymous bloggers only gives them props, it doesn't serve his ultimate purpose - dealing with the larger community of thought.

Things is, what this really comes down to is you're (correctly, I think) making such judgements based on ethics.

So, explain to us where the ethics are that allow "Publius" to attack Whelan without being directly connected to his words and the consequences of them, while Whealan is not only dealing with the attack, but is also directly connected to his own words and their consequences?

See, there's the nut of this thing, for me. A lot of folks have compared "Publius' to the then-anonymous authors of "The Federalist Papers". Problem is the federalist papers did not focus at any point on personal attacks.

If we assume that previous postings affect the weight of the current argument, what can be said about the situation as I described, and it's effect on the current argument against Whalen?

Well, one direct question would be whether the pseudonymous author in question actually engaged in those previous efforts? I don't know, that's why I'm distancing from those earlier ideas. To take the opposite view, it's possible to view Ed Whelan as a complete ass and still write for National Review (I suppose) and never actually deal with how much of an ass Ed Whelan is.

Should that require that any pseudonymous blogger on NRO be "outed"? I would propose not. I don't necessarily judge bloggers based on *where* they blog, but on their own blogging ability. Sullivan and the Atlantic are separate to me. Similarly, I think Douthat is an ass, and I don't care if the New York Times pays him handsomely, i still don't care for what he writes.

I hope that makes sense.

and have no idea what this discussion about outing people who frequent prostitutes has to do with this episode.

Hmmmm. How to explain this breifly? A question, I guess.

If we assume that previous postings affect the weight of the current argument, what can be said about the situation as I described, and it's effect on the current argument against Whalen?