tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post5355840400898642991..comments2023-10-24T11:23:31.580-04:00Comments on Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion: Outer Objects To OutingWilliam A. Jacobsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16433685588536441422noreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-31220372692733634942009-06-08T23:46:13.845-04:002009-06-08T23:46:13.845-04:00Tom,
I'm flattered you read my comment and t...Tom, <br /><br />I'm flattered you read my comment and took the time to respond. <br /><br />I must correct you, however: the assertions of "dishonest posts, shoddy scholarship ..." are mine, not Mr. Whelan's. You are, of course, free to disagree with my assessments, but based on what I've read of Mr. Blevens oeuvre they seem fair and accurate.<br /><br />But in responding, I'm afraid you didn't respond to or refute my actual point: that entrance via publication into the public domain necessarily removes an expectation of anonymity (and a certain level of privacy, for that matter). <br /><br />Nor have you explained why Mr. Whelan has a moral obligation to shield Mr. Blevens' anonymity (not that this is your responsibility to so explain, but I think an intellectually honest person might attempt it)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-64993205112325955982009-06-08T13:32:09.474-04:002009-06-08T13:32:09.474-04:00Hmmm, let's see, "I seem to remember a ti...Hmmm, let's see, "I seem to remember a time when you lefties thought it was hilarious to publish the home addresses of Conservative pundits, such as Michelle Malkin," Really, would you be able to provide evidence of that? Was it before or after Malkin "outed" a high school kid who disagreed with her stance, which of course was both necessary and perfectly fine, well, for her , anyway.<br />Asto Whelan, we have a commenter who sucks down Whelan's assertions of "dishonest posts, shoddy scholarship and all..." And Jonathan, you know that's correct how exactly? Because Whelan , whom Volokh skewered (yes, he did) says so? Weak tea at best. But you just go ahead and drink it on down.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16456972804466830727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-23757091860334850372009-06-08T09:25:59.920-04:002009-06-08T09:25:59.920-04:00For the record, Richard Armitage leaked Valerie Pl...For the record, Richard Armitage leaked Valerie Plame's identity. Why don't liberals know this?<br /><br />http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/07/eveningnews/main1981433.shtml<br /><br />Also, morally and not legally speaking, we who blog are welcome to anonymity or pseudo-anonymity so long as we don't attack someone else in public. Private e-mails I would argue are an exception. However, once you attack, and make a habit of attacking people in a public forum, other citizens have the right to know who they are speaking to. It is no different than verbally assaulting someone in public wearing a mask.Blue Collar Profhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05784784896479629011noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-91847483538381557452009-06-08T00:27:55.362-04:002009-06-08T00:27:55.362-04:00Sorry, but throughout this debate here and on othe...Sorry, but throughout this debate here and on other sites, there seems to be some regrettable confluence of the concepts of "privacy" and "anonymity." If you do not behave in a manner consistent with an expectation of privacy, don't be surprised when others engage you in a public debate, and attempt to find out all they can about you. Such attempts are a legitimate and acknowledged percursor to multiple forms of criticism, both literary and legal.<br /><br />Contra to some of the previous posters; repeatedly and vociferously engaging in a public debate does indeed make one a public figure.<br /><br />Attempting anonymity while engaging in public debate is futile, not to mention dishonest. I cannot believe a law professor who is also internet-savvy enough to be a prolific blogger is unaware of the ease with which others can discern his identity.<br /><br />And as a side note; no one who has defended Publius' "right" to anonymity has put forward a legitimate reason why Mr. Whelan should shield Mr. Blevins' identity from the public, when that identity - dishonest posts, shoddy scholarship and all - is instructive in informing the reader regarding Mr. Blevins' credibility, or lack thereof.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-17799057563872279862009-06-07T23:17:59.898-04:002009-06-07T23:17:59.898-04:00Highly amusing that his fellow wingnuts are by &am...Highly amusing that his fellow wingnuts are by & large condamning Whelan. Pity they lacked the stones to do likewise when Malkin was stalking a child or dropping dox on peace-protesters.<br /><br />The exception only proves the rule: the tribe of Rove tend to follow in his slimy footsteps when it comes to dirty tricks - the name "Valerie Plame" comes to mind.jimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06840719620959481121noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-39932120295884192772009-06-07T22:11:04.277-04:002009-06-07T22:11:04.277-04:00If anyone doubts that it can get ugly out on the w...If anyone doubts that it can get ugly out on the web they didn't go any further than the above comments to know better. Those who would defend the sanctity of taking cheap shots anonymously are not exactly standing on the high ground.Carolhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17892433094729392295noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-35332049337411977892009-06-07T19:02:50.478-04:002009-06-07T19:02:50.478-04:00What an odd method of self-empowerment among the l...What an odd method of self-empowerment among the left-tending contributors here: Apparently, they feel empowered by their ability to demean themselves, in demeaning others, without fear of retribution. It's the same pattern that finally drove Whelan offer new resources to their insatiable narcissistic appetites.CK MacLeodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04526506408971823547noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-59851747876618891302009-06-07T18:00:21.184-04:002009-06-07T18:00:21.184-04:00It was unfair to the Afghan Hound to be likened to...It was unfair to the Afghan Hound to be likened to Coulter.Tom239https://www.blogger.com/profile/08284080992839010801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-30366079710459304392009-06-07T17:40:57.807-04:002009-06-07T17:40:57.807-04:00When Jonah Goldberg woke up with his pants on back...When Jonah Goldberg woke up with his pants on backward?<br /><br />Talk about a cheap shot. Who can imagine any circumstance in which Jonah Goldberg would have occasion to take his pants off?<br /><br />At least, who can imagine it without uncontrollable nausea.Green Eaglehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13477132834757467690noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-42109089093773727032009-06-07T16:26:58.274-04:002009-06-07T16:26:58.274-04:00Woah! You have some serious moonbattery coming you...Woah! You have some serious moonbattery coming your way, William!<br /><br />dmbeaster, were all the folks in NYC for the GOP convention "public figures?" No? The h*ll you say! And you had slightly anonymous blogger telling others to go out and basically harass the Republicans. Seems like perfect equivalence. <br /><br />Hmm, tas, I seem to remember a time when you lefties thought it was hilarious to publish the home addresses of Conservative pundits, such as Michelle Malkin, putting their families in danger. Are you OK with that?William Teachhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11447753680268439618noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-55009269460016957962009-06-07T15:46:00.136-04:002009-06-07T15:46:00.136-04:00SO, please list for us the "Neoconservatives ...SO, please list for us the "Neoconservatives on the airwaves" who "encourage people to go out and shoot abortion doctors". And provide the quotes, please.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04705111910614473160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-35839009530906490172009-06-07T15:39:54.590-04:002009-06-07T15:39:54.590-04:00Whelan did not need to out publius.Whelan did not need to out publius.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-48001844588804857492009-06-07T15:00:02.066-04:002009-06-07T15:00:02.066-04:00ummmhh, beg your pardon. "Neoconservative (t...ummmhh, beg your pardon. "Neoconservative (that all-round slur)...say any damn thing they please, including encourage people to go out and shoot abortion doctors . . ." That's a pretty serious charge there, buster. Got any links to back it up? And did you get your panties bunched over, say Progressive/Stalinist/fascist Rachel Maddow ("on the airwaves" and "say(ing) any damn thing" she pleases) when she encouraged shooting President Bush?<br /><br />I'm betting not. "Moon(bat) Rattled is pretty symptomatic of the problem. I'd take him/her more seriously (anonymous or not, since I am also) if s/he could be a bit more even-handed.<br /><br />So, until Rattled comes forth with evidence of similar high dudgeon towards Left types, I'll take it as a given that the above posting is not argument so much as peurile venting.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-79889630398381032452009-06-07T14:47:36.739-04:002009-06-07T14:47:36.739-04:00Wait, I think I get it.. Outing people is only wr...Wait, I think I get it.. Outing people is only wrong when a left leaning blogger encourages pictures of GOP delegates to be taken. Which isn't exactly an "outing" since names aren't being published. But when an actual outing, where the name of an anonymous blogger is released, happens, then it's all good because it was done by a rightwing blogger. <br /><br />OK, gotcha. That logic is perfectly, uh, clear...?tashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14296761263276891805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-42649801950559055742009-06-07T14:45:03.055-04:002009-06-07T14:45:03.055-04:00I may disapprove of what you say anonymously but I...I may disapprove of what you say anonymously but I will defend your right to say it anonymously.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-52497671370668325852009-06-07T13:45:31.257-04:002009-06-07T13:45:31.257-04:00Neoconservatives on the airwaves say any damn thin...Neoconservatives on the airwaves say any damn thing they please, including encourage people to go out and shoot abortion doctors, support torture and so on, but the minute someone disagrees with them on a blog, or "bites their ankles" they have a big whiney cry and run to mama screaming that person's name and address.Moon Rattledhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12582624883573651364noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-21812634676998663622009-06-07T12:55:45.972-04:002009-06-07T12:55:45.972-04:00Valuable comments. Whelan made a mistake, IMO - o...Valuable comments. Whelan made a mistake, IMO - or at any rate did something I think most of us instinctively would have refrained from doing. He took the easy way out to get back at "publius," and the result reflects poorly on him and makes things a little bit harder for those who value his work and generally stand with him. On the other hand, as you show, what he did was fairly trivial: It's not like publius was an undercover agent or whistleblower. He was just one of a thousand - or is it several million? - self-righteous anonymous internet nobodies, who now probably stands to benefit from undeserved attention more than he stands to suffer from it.CK MacLeodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04526506408971823547noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-14119526332069077702009-06-07T12:49:36.413-04:002009-06-07T12:49:36.413-04:00A lot of false equivalences here.
Public figures ...A lot of false equivalences here.<br /><br />Public figures who act as moral scolds while hypocritically engaging in the forbidden conduct deserve to be outed. If they want their privacy, then live a private life, or alternatively, don't be a hypocrite. You do not, under a claim of privacy, get the privilege of making other's lives miserable while doing what you condemn.<br /><br />Being an psuedonomynous blogger does not make one a public figure, nor is it inconsistent or hypocritical with writing a political blog. Supposedly what matters in the content of the writing -- not knowing the identity of the writer simply prevents the usual personal attacks as rebuttal.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-15662167069489824232009-06-07T11:56:44.797-04:002009-06-07T11:56:44.797-04:00outing = bad
I don't like outing anybody for ...outing = bad<br /><br />I don't like outing anybody for any reason whatsoever. I disapprove the outing of gay Republicans who publicly denounce homosexuality or push for laws that diminish their rights, which puts me at odds with some liberal blogs (cf. AMERICAblog).<br /><br />If privacy is to have any value whatsoever, it includes the option to hide from view certain activities: Going to the racetrack to bet on the ponies. Purchasing Hustler magazine. Attending a church of a marginal religion. Etc.<br /><br />Outing is part of a Puritan mindset that insists that everything be done on the public stage. Everything. So that the crowd can weigh in on this-or-that personal quirk or unpopular viewpoint that the subject exhibits. It's actually a primitive (and juvenile) social phenomenon that we can do without.Quiddityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08543124816916606452noreply@blogger.com