Whelan Apology Critics Are Off The Mark

I generally agree with Jules on things. But in my opinion he and some other friends are so wide of the mark here it warrants a response. I think some are either seeing this through an ideological prism, or bloggers who chose to use their own names aren't being mindful of a generally accepted freedom out here some others have opted to enjoy, whatever their reasoning.

Assuming Ace of Ace of Spades has or wants a job in which his name might play a part - say a byline, as he's a very talented writer - you're saying his use of profanity and a certain brand of humor to which some might object on his blog over the years should be considered in his suitability for it? I like Ace and his blog, so I' not dissing him, just making a point.

Thanks to Hot Air and Michelle's brand, Allahpundit is one of the most widely read bloggers associated with the Right. I guess he's out of line every time he criticizes something because no one knows who he is? As I don't believe I've ever seen any of the current apology critics say such things, I hope they might post it now. If nothing else, that would certainly stir up the Right-side out here.

Jules is a journalist and a friend who came to blogging, not late, but not early, either. Certain conventions have held sway out here for a very long time. Respect for desired anonymity through a pseudonym happens to be one of them. If that's changed somehow, perhaps some of the critics of the apology - also see RedState, Ed Driscoll and Powerline, for example - will link to the decree, assuming it's been posted on the web. I must have missed it, somehow. I think it also funny that many of the critics allow comments without self-identification. I'm sure their commenters will be pleased to learn that they are either of low character, or insignificant somehow, as no one knows who they really are.

I’m a little late to this Whelan-Publius party, but as long as the great blogosphere is speaking, I’ll add my voice. I don’t understand why Whelan needs to apologize for identifying a law professor who thinks he can engage in public debate and orchestrate a targeted attack on Whelan under a false name. I think the law professor’s employers should be taking a close look at such low ethical behavior, and consider what kind of example he is setting for aspiring lawyers, who will operate in a very public world, governed by personal responsibility and consequences.

Comments

[CJB]

If it's right out this one. It's right to out them all. No matter who they voted for.

[Jana]

I still think that if you wish to remain anonymous, the onus is on you to guard that anonymity.

The left would not hesitate to "out" Allah or Ace if they could.

[CJB]

Sure,but if you create an environment where this sort of thing is part of the typical in fighting you can't complain later that things have become nasty just because it happens to one of your own. Best not to forget that, or at least acknowledge that possibility while you're pouring the boiling oil on one of theirs. If you're angry send them an email. Don't do something stupid publicly.

[Jimmie]

It seems to me that you've entirely missed the point of what the critics of the apology are saying. They are not saying that anonymity or pseudonymity on the internet is wrong or bad.

What they're saying, and I'm pretty sure that Jules said so explicitly, is that the person hiding behind the anonymity has an obligation to behave well and not to use anonymity as cover from which to launch scurrilous attacks without having to face the consequence of those attacks. "Publius" acted much differently from Ace or Allah and I'm reasonably sure that you can discern that. Anonymity on the web, though a convention, is a privilege, not a right. When someone abuses that privilege, I consider myself under no obligation to help enable them.

In other words, if you use anonymity to act like a jerk without having to face the consequences of your jerkish behavior, don't be surprised when someone names you and shames you.

[Jules Crittenden]

What Jimmie said

[Dan Riehl]

Man, Jules and Jimmie - where's the conservative / libertarian tradition in that? If someone doesn't want their blogging infringing on their personal life for whatever reason, unless they cross some ethical or legal line, it isn't my right to demand it be so by exposing them. Gee, someone posted a response to Whelan, however repeatedly, and said "You suck!"

How he ever suvived such torment without skewering up the courage to dick with the guy's real life, I'll never know.

I'm glad Whelan had the fortitude to apologize.

[Jimmie]

Dan, the point is that Whelan didn't dick with the guy's life, he dicked with his own life.

No one has the right to hide behind anonymity just to fling mud. The conservative/libertarian tradition is that you take responsibility for your words unless there is a very good reason for you not to. "Publius" gave his big reason as "Oh, my family doens't know I'm a liberal. Boo hoo hoo hoo".

Sorry, but that doesn't cut it. If he's man enough to fling crap from the sidelines, he's man enough to tell his sainted Mama that he's a lefty, too. He gets no protection from me and I can't imagine why anyone else would want to give him cover either.

I'm rather tired of the people who can be absolute pricks because we good-hearted and decent people think we're under some sort of obligation to let them be. We're not and there's nothing whatever wrong with snatching one up them up by the scruff of the neck, tossing them into the spotlight and saying "Behold, A dick!". Maybe it'll discourage the next guy from being a jerk, too.

[Cecil Turner]

I don't know what you mean by "cross some ethical or legal line," but it seems to me that Publius did exactly that in the post that kicked this all off.

“The Education of Ed Whelan” is pure [incoherent] ad hominem, asserting simultaneously Whelan is being "educated" and that "He knows all this," commenting on his resume and accusing him of being disingenuous (e.g., "He just enjoys playing the role of know-nothing demagogue."), with the clear intent of destroying his credibility.

Yet when Whelan subsequently refers to Blevins's actual resume, it's some sort of "real life" violation? Sorry, but that's hard to feature.

[Billy Beck]

You're wrong, Rhiel. You're dead wrong.

http://www.two--four.net/weblog.php?id=P4583

[Hyman Roth]

If you attack someone's reputation and credentials, your own reputation & credentials are fair game.

If Whelan had outed some other aspect of Blevins' life (such as sexual orientation), it would not have been relevant to the debate topic which he and Blevins were discussing. I could understand why some people would disagree with that kind of outing, if it had occurred. I would not be one of them, but I can understand the logic.

But Blevins was casting doubt on Whelan's education, qualifications and legal ability from behind a cloak (almost typed "cloaca" there, heh heh) of anonymity. It was a no-class move on Blevins part, and he deserved what he got.

Blevins' students deserve to know what kind of a partisan blowhard he is, and what kind of legal underachiever he is, too.

[Eric Florack]

Sorry, Dan. We disagree, for the first time in recent memory.
http://bitsblog.florack.us/?p=21318

Beck's comments about Usenet apply particularly well.