It's called whistle-blowing, and people lose their jobs for it all the time. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be doing it.

As James pointed out, there are laws protecting whistle-blowers from being fired for reporting violations of law. But that's a narrow category, most of what people think is whistle-blowing is merely gossip that casts an employer in a bad light.

I'd be more interested in the concerns of the individual being bitchslapped by an anon blogger, as Whalen was, and repeatedly.

That's the nature of blogging. It would be one thing if Publius had been spreading lies about Whelan or some such. Blogging about what an idiot Whelan was, though, is part of the game.

Neither the Publius nor the NightJack cases involve whistle-blowing, however.

Fair enough. And perhaps I was taking the statement too generally. I'd have a hard time finding a counter-example to the "reputation" part of it, regardless.

I think the law is absolute: People have a right to out anonymous/pseudonymous bloggers. As to who decides what's noble, it's the reading public.

Mmm. That would be fairly well consistant with the position I took in the Whalen case.

That said, I must admit a level of concern about this. You mention "Public Interest", James... isn't "Public Interest" what hustled us down the road to Kelo, for example? I'd be more interested in the concerns of the individual being bitchslapped by an anon blogger, as Whalen was, and repeatedly.

I wonder though, given the (agreed upon) absolute nature you cite, how to seperate the government outting someone who was making it look bad, vs an individual protecting themselves from anon attacks.

It's called whistle-blowing, and people lose their jobs for it all the time. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be doing it.

We've got laws on the books to protect whistle blowers, although I can't vouch for their effectiveness.

Neither the Publius nor the NightJack cases involve whistle-blowing, however. Publius wanted to shield his political views from his career and family for a variety of reasonable rationales. NightJack was giving away case information and the inside dope on policing, not exposing corruption or specific misdeeds.

“If it might cost you your job or your reputation, then you ought not be doing it.”

As I think I mentioned in the Publius thread, I tend to disagree with this sweeping statement. It's called whistle-blowing, and people lose their jobs for it all the time. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be doing it.

Well, this raises the question, though of how one deals with nobility of purpose as a matter of law. And who gets to decide what is and is not 'noble'?

I think the law is absolute: People have a right to out anonymous/pseudonymous bloggers. As to who decides what's noble, it's the reading public.

I would add, however, that some motivations for revealing the identity of anonymous (or, as in most of these cases) pseudonymous bloggers are more noble than others.

Well, this raises the question, though of how one deals with nobility of purpose as a matter of law. And who gets to decide what is and is not 'noble'?

"Publius", call your office.

I mean, was he 'noble' in his attacks on Whalen?