What my latest dustup with Broome Community College’s Dr Andrew Haggerty and NPR’s David Ferguson has showcased, I believe, are some of the growing pains of the new media, which, given its virtual nature, makes it easy for anyone wishing to do so to obscure his or her personal identity online.
This ability to create a controlling persona— to write from the position of near-absolute freedom that comes with shedding your meatspace identity—is both a blessing and a curse, and so, from an ethical perspective, should necessarily, as I’ll argue here, resist the kind of absolutist approach to privacy protections many have advocated (myself, at one time, among them).
Dr Haggerty and his fellow ideologues DEMAND the freedom to write what they wish; and on this point, I agree with them both philosophically and in practice, provided they follow applicable laws. Free speech is an essential component of liberty, as well as one of the driving forces behind whatever successes to which a representative form of government can lay claim.
But what Haggerty and his fellow ideologues also demand—and to be clear, ideologues exist on all sides of the political divide— is the right to launch smear campaigns aimed at people who use their real identities, and to do so without fear that these attacks will come back to “anyone†other than their online personas. Which, too, is a position I can live with—up to a point.
It is only when these personal attacks approach libel, or are intended to incite violence—or when they are being deployed as a cynical and dishonest way to discredit the person in question (a McCarthyesque tactic if ever there was one)—that the ethics of commanding anonymity should, in my opinion, be open to re-examination.
From my perspective, Haggerty and his like, while they offer up flowery defenses for the ethical necessity of being granted unharrassed anonymity, are merely pretending to take the high road—and their arguments rely for their force (ironically, given that they themselves are moral relativists) on appeals both to a populist notion of ethical absolutism, and to the loaded invocation of the free speech and its supposed inviolability. But what they really want, it seems, is the ability to take the lowest road imaginable—to libel with impunity, to lie, to mislead, and to shape discourse by injecting into it bad faith rhetorical maneuvers meant to marginalize their opponents, which is an attractive gambit, of course, because it is often easier and less time consuming than arguing a point on its merits.
That is, if you can preemptively destroy the credibility of your opponent, you can then claim—conveniently—that the opponent challenging you is not worth your bother, his having been previously discredited and so his points now by implication suspect on their face. This reasoning, such as it is, is perfectly circular, and requires only the mastery of the fallacy that creates it to perfect its deployment. Whereas actually engaging your political opponents takes a bit more effort—and requires a bit more than the specialized skill of rhetorical cynicism and misdirection.
So all these piercing cries you hear throughout the blogosphere about “ethics” and “integrity” from internet personas known almost exclusively for the personal attacks on political opponents have nothing to do with some desire to see free speech protected. Had Dr Haggerty not been so intent on attacking my reputation, for instance â€â€that is, had he just argued in good faith on the merits of the points I made in my posts on intentionalismâ€â€nobody on my site would have cared for one moment what his real name is.
But increasingly, people like Haggerty have taken to using their perceived anonymity as a shield against having to take responsibility for attempts to savage the reputations of real people. And worse, they believe themselves absolutely entitled to such protections.
And it is on this point that we disagree.
The fact is, such an arrangement as the one they wish to see made ethically binding relies as much on their good faith as it does the good faith of those of us who use our real names.
I opted out of the Online Integrity Pledge because it was clear that nearly all of the leftwing attack sites had no intention of signing itâ€â€and in fact, these sites became intent on using the fact of our signings as a weapon to keep us from fighting back.
In that respect, they are like quasi-cyberterrorists, using the self-imposed restraint of their opponents to hamstring them, and playing a game of asymmetrical rhetorical warfare that they hope to be able to keep insulated by appealing to the self-righteousness of those who are merely “observers” to the proceedings. Self-preservation, under those conditions, demands a degree of pragmatism, no matter how deep your idealism extends.
And the thing is, I ain’t no Glenn Greenwald—and I’ve decided that I am not about to extend to these cynical anklebiters the kind of protections they demand simply because I wish to be seen, by those who confuse morality with piety, as morally superior.
Because such moral superiority means nothing if your reputation is savaged in the process, and—as I have never fallen prey to the perils of moral relativism anywayâ€â€I find it perfectly moral to act in a way that demands reciprocality in the types of uneasy relationships the new media has created.
To extend the cyberterrorist analogy a bit further: if you don’t want to sign onto the Geneva Convention or follow its dictates? Then I don’t feel any obligation to recognize the protections you claim it provides when it suits your needs to. Which is not to say that I won’t do so. Just that I am not required, by any moral calculus, to do so—and so you violate the terms of the framework at your own risk.
Now, I could be wrong on this. And I am willing to be persuaded that I am. So I invite you all to comment—though I ask that you please keep it civil. We have an opportunity here to address a growing concern in the blogosphere, and I think it a good idea that we try to do so.
Your post is a starting post for a debate on the subject, however, the problem with the debate is that it can’t be had without describing in some detail the new forms of unethical behaviors possible in the ‘nets. I have no desire to provide a handbook to those who are at present amateurs in technique, if not in vitriol.
Jeff, Jeff, Jeff. You’re such an idealist.
Within the context of your questions about the new freedom and internet privacy, the whole thing is about the fact that lefties refuse to argue in good faith. What makes you think they will this time? I hope you do get some reasonable comments from some lefties, but somehow I doubt it. And , yes, I know it’s an open forum, I’m just speaking about our mentally challenged brethren.
I don’t know whether it’s moral to out a pseudonymous blogger if he’s acting like a jerk. I do know that it’s dumb for a pseudonymous blogger to act like a jerk to a blogger who uses his or her real name. It wasn’t just you that the good doctor pulled this crap with. He was up Ann Althouse’s ass for months. If you’re going to give somebody else a weapon to use against you, you probably shouldn’t also dare him to use it. Maybe that’s why Allahpundit doesn’t hang around trolling other people’s comment sections, even though you kind of get the feeling he’d be good at it, if he tried.
I won’t comment on the morality of demanding anonymity on the internet when attacking other people and breaching their anonymity, but I will comment on the practicality.
It ain’t.
Two recent stories. A few hundred guys have just been arrested for ‘anonymously’ buying kiddie porn on the internet, and a Miami firm finds itself being sued for libel for a Wikipedia entry that alledged various things about golfer Fuzzy Zoeller that was sent ‘anonymously’ from one of their computers. (Do you think the firm might fnd out who done it?)
Assuming that you can hide behind a nom-de-keyboard and no-one can ever trace it back to you is dumb, especially if you give them plenty of reasons to do so.
Complete anonymity on the Internet?
Wow…it invites the image of Hobbes’ State of Nature–on ‘roids. After all, even in the SON, Hobbes never entertained the possibility that we might not know who was attacking whom….
Those who appeal to an anonymous playing-field, I guess, might be invoking the idea of an ideally hyperfree “marketplace of ideas.” It’s ironic, though, to find a few liberals backing this notion–because liberals are the selfsame ones who point out (quite rightly) why we sometimes need to curtail free markets in the economic sphere.
I guess (to coin a phrase) the pro-anons‘ rejoinder might be to point out some disanalogy between “free economic markets” and “free idea markets.” I’d be very interested to hear how that response might run.
function46
</i>I opted out of the Online Integrity Pledge because it was clear that nearly all of the leftwing attack sites had no intention of signing itâ€â€and in fact, these sites became intent on using the fact of our sigings as a weapon to keep us from fighting back.</i>
Please. You started the pledge and broke it in the same week. The reality is that a lot of liberal academics have both the time and talent to spend on the internet making fun of crazy rightwing nutjobs ( if the shoe fits…). At the same time, spending your time on the internet making fun of crazy rightwing nutjobs is not something that looks good on your CV.
You clearly figured this out early, which is why you make it such a big deal to be sure to “out” pseudonymous bloggers. Your goal is quite clear – you clearly cannot succeed in a battle of wits, so you change the playing field and try to get their employers to stop them. Also, your mouthbreathing “fans” then take the personal information and try to intimidate your opponents.
It’s the game of a fascist coward, Jeff. And you excel at it. You have no ethics. Congratulations.
At least you know now why NTodd’s wife was so scared of him that she finally filed for divorce (that, and the fact she preferred a horse’s dick to his tiny little pecker).
No one has a right to anonymity on the net, or anywhere else. We can choose to respect or not someone’s preference for anonymity.
Here’s my simple minded take. Say some bozo dons a ski mask and parades out in front of my mother’s house talking trash. I could ignore it, I could beat his ass, I could call the cops, seek a restraining order. I have options–most legal.
When the guy opens his pie hole, he incurs responsibility for his actions. If his actions harm me illegally, I can prosecute, ski mask or not.
Let’s say a Dept. store Santa molests your daughter and then argues that it was Santa that did it. You buying it? Me neither.
Same with anonymous bloggers.
I’m a ‘pseudonymous blogger’, and I became that way because of lunatics like the terribly ironically pseudonymous blogger ‘fasteddie’ up there, calling my house at 3am and telling me they were outside my house and coming up to kill my family. And that was just the nice stuff.
I’ve been blabbing via the internet since 1990, and I was ‘in the clear’ a lot of the time. While I admire people like you, Jeff, who continue to do so, it is pretty much with the same admiration I hold for someone who throws themselves on a grenade.
There are a lot of people who know who I actually am, including most of my family, and all of my kids.
There are just too many loons out there (as you have come to the harsh realization) for me to feel safe to not be under the radar with a pseudonym when I do so.
Good enough for Mark Twain, good enough for me.
fasteddie, who has been intimidated, how and by whom? haggerty has merely been embarrassed. And where did you come up with this chronology? Good faith arguments, or none at all, please. And the “facist coward” crap? Do grow up.
fasteddie, all I can discern from your post is that you are extremely paranoid. So no one needs to “intimidate” you any further. You do the job quite well all by yourself.
The following from Whiskeyfire (evidently from the esteemed perfesser, but he’s so super-secret anonymous, we may never know for sure)seems to me to pretty much sum up the root of the problem:
I read:
Blah, blah, blah… I’m intellectually superior… blah, blah, blah… I was just poking him with a stick, then he went and pantsed me and showed my shortcomings to the world… Waaaaahhhh!!
Like I’ve said before, it’s easy… I never put anything on the internets or in E-mail that I don’t consider suitable for public perusal. ‘Cause this thing just aint really private, no matter how lonely you feel, typing away in your bathrobe and slippers.
TW: On your feet57, yes.
-Ann Coulter
Apropos of the culminating exchange for this post:
After exerting much effort in a spurious campaign to portray me as an untrustworthy actor, Andrew Haggerty, Ph.D.(!), shows that he’s only interested in the subject as a cudgel against his imaginary enemies: he cites me as a trustworthy actor when it is convenient to attack Jeff Goldstein. As it happens, I am also a trustworthy actor where Andrew Haggerty is concerned: his assertion that I “[caught] out Jeff in a direct lie” is a direct lie. You may read the relevant text for yourself, which has been linked-to several times already. Suffice it to say that if I was persuaded that Goldstein was “directly lying” about matters concerning me, I would be similarly direct in correcting the record. No one familiar with my public record can doubt this. This is, unfortunately, classic Haggerty: in seeking the social validation which apparently escapes him in the physical world, he plays to a virtual audience in the form of a scolding, faux-ideologue insult-comic. In this guise, personal degradation in the form of fake victimhood and braying lies is not, as with ordinary people of ordinary sense, something to be avoided. It is, rather, a tool. “Look how I am covered in mud,” shouts Haggerty, “and look who did it to me!”—and then he continues scraping his pallid, padded belly unaided throught the offal and grime, occasionally looking upward to make sure you’re watching. In the race to the bottom, the likes of Haggerty always win. He’s hardly the only one of his kind. It is the guaranteed petty victory over unseen foes, exercised via keyboard and from behind playtime pseudonyms, that builds up their sense of self. No cost is too great to pay for that, be it the slow erosion of something they vaguely remember as “dignity,” nor the brazen citation of the Most Untrustworthy Man on the Internet as a reliable source.
You started the pledge and broke it in the same week.
Wrong on both counts.
I am ashamed to see this kind of crap at this blog. It stoops to the level of Sadly, No! commenters who jab at Jeff for not getting his PhD, or taking Klonopin.
This is the kind of ugly personal attack everyone should forego. NTodd may be a huge jerk, but responding in this way is a perfect example of what *not* to do.
Christ, didn’t you pay attention to Jeff’s post, where he asked you to keep things civil?
Agreed. The NTodd jab was uncalled-for.
Dr Haggerty actually wrote this?
My notes Thersites referenced as an introduction to this whole thing explored—juxtaposed against intentionalism—just about every other conceivable approach to interpretation, once the innumerable “schools” are stripped to their basic assumptions.
I not only dealt with hermeutics, deconstruction, new historicism, and other sociological manifestations of response theory, but I did so at great length—taking care to factor in several ideas of the sign and how it functions.
It is simply mind-boggling that Haggerty would make the claim that I am unaware of other approaches to interpretation.
On my shelf above me, I have a copy of Bourdieu’s Language & Symbolic Power. I have elsewhere discussed its deficiencies.
Haggerty is both an intellectual coward and a bald-faced liar.
“Mean. Yes. Oh well. No, I wasn’t playing nice.” Actually, Haggerty was barely playing at all.
He made a fool of yourself, and now he istrying to recast the entire debate in a new light. Convenient that his earlier posts and comments are gone.
Oh, wait—I remember this fellow. “cmdicely” is an old lefty troll from way back. And he’s trolling again with his idiot NTodd comment.
Moby, Moby, Moby.
The person who posted that stuff about NTodd has never posted here before under the IP address s/he used.
For what it’s worth.
So, another lefty covers himself in moral glory.
It could be a Trojan Horse.
Suffice it to say: that type of ugly, vicious comment is standard fare at Sadly, No! It is unusual here, which is why it jumped out at me, and I thought it should be condemned—something that would never happen at Sadly, No!
Jeff, it’s interesting that they have the ability to censor comments over there when someone mentions HTML’s real name—but when people mock you for being a stay-at-home dad or taking anti-anxiety medication, there’s no censoring, banning, or even remonstrating the commenters.
Jeff,
That quote is part of the post Slarti linked to last night. Right after he explains why the guy that thought the perfesser was wrong “made a mistake” about what the perfesser was saying. ( Or, at least, that’s what I think he tried to say… he makes my eyes glaze over pretty quickly.)
But he didn’t mean what he was saying anyway, cause he was just trying to rile you up. So, either way he’s right, see?
TW: Gotta keep24 yer eyes on the deck of cards with his type.
Key sentence right there. I can’t really phrase my thoughts on this very well to comment coherently enough about it, but I do believe you stress an important point about one’s online identity here. I do think there is a difference between restraining oneself out of respect for where you think the focus of the debate is as opposed to what your opponent thinks, and restraining oneself because that person is required to. I hope that makes sense…
Oh, Patterico, hush, and grow a pair. I just ask you to imagine if blogging had been around when Twain and Churchill and Mencken (the real one) could have taken advantage of it. The flesh would have flown like from out of a wood-chipper.
I respect Jeff’s call for civility on this issue, this post, here, but good heavens, to claim that posts here haven’t descended into delightful slug-fests of donnybrook proportions is, at the very least…naive?
On this point I agree with you. I’m not sure of the fine legal points, but anonymity was never designed to be a defense against real slander and libel against a person, and the real damages they do.
So I don’t think I understand the outrage some people have over the idea of “outing”* anonymous bloggers. Yeah, most of us like the idea of some of the anonymity of the internet, but in the end, when push comes to shove, getting “outed” doesn’t seem to be such a horrible thing. (and yeah, I know I’m using some fake ass internet name when I post this.)
*outing being defined as revealing the identification of a person, not his home address.
Because from what I understand, this “outing” takes place from gathering publically available information. I don’t know of anyone who was outed because people somehow illegally broke into their homes or bank accounts or e-mail accounts or whatever.
But really, my committment to the cause of preserving anonymity doesn’t really go that far. Once real damages (slander and libel) come in, I think the offenders lose whatever moral right to this anonymity they hold.
So yeah, it all comes down to damages. If you go arround unfairly damaging someone, you should be held liable/responsible. Or at least own up to it.
Which is why I’ve decided that the whole changing comments thing is such a bad idea. Not fisking them. Not adding snarky comments in brackets. But just flat out changing comments. Because if comments are what are causing the damage, then an accurate record is what is so necessary. Because if comments started getting changed, then anyone anywhere is vulnerable to being accused of something they didn’t do.
Now I think that you disagree with me on this. About the whole changing comments. Fair enough. On an earlier post I said that changing comments meant that we wouldn’t really be able to tell who was slandering and libeling people when it actually went to court.
And you responded that yes, the comments might be changed, but you kept a permanant record of the original on some sort of … internet tech…comment recording thingy. Which is good, but damages come from a public viewing of false facts, not a private one.
If I write “Al Gore is a liar and has abused little children” on a piece of paper in my private apartment, who cares? No one sees it. His reputation isn’t damaged. But if I publically publish it, then I have damaged him.
So if I change someones comments to something that is damaging, it doesn’t matter that I have a private copy of his original comments. It is the altered public ones that are doing the damages.
The reason for the above detour to whole “changing comments” thing is because basically, I just think that doing that makes the whole idea of trying to figure out who really said what to who almost impossible to figure out.
Having said that, I don’t believe that you are going arround maliciously changing comments out of some dishonest motive. I’m not trying to pin you with some sort of B.S. hypocrisy charge. I read and watched Deb Frisch do her attacks on you and I believe that those were her real comments, and you didn’t do any sort of fakery there. And based off of her real comments, I think you got some proposed judgement from her. And well deserved it was.
But yeah, the whole idea of anonymously sniping at someone who has the guts to put his real name by his internet words doesn’t seem to really make me want to cheer for the anonymous guy.
By the way, I don’t know all that much about internet technology. And it may be that I have NO idea about the tech specs involved. It may be that there is no way to stop people from changing comments. In which case, well I guess I’m tilting at windmills.
There are a lot of aspects to the issue.
How private is the information in question?
Did the poster put it online himself/herself?
Why is the person anonymous? For legitimate reasons? Or to take nasty potshots at people behind a veil of anonymity?
Let’s say an anonymous person goes around mocking personal characteristics of others. Say, for example, they mock someone else’s alleged cock fetish. Now, say that they have themselves created pages made public on the internet that show that, while they criticized others for supposedly having a cock fetish, they themselves have one.
Is it truly wrong for them to play the victim if people notice and use that information?
I think it’s a good rule to avoid causing people personal harm for things they say on the Internet. Except that some people don’t observe that principle themselves—and don’t realize that harming someone’s reputatation with bullshit, does in fact cause them personal harm. Reputations are not meaningless, and trashing them without evidence is very ugly behavior.
I’m not sure it’s behavior that should earn one a complete cloak of anonymity with which to do it.
But, like Jeff, I’m feeling my way along here. I’m thinking out loud, and not giving this the kind of care I would if I posted about it.
Which is another thing. People have trashed Jeff in the past for things he said in comments. But comments are by their nature more spontaneous than posts, and I think it’s unfair to hold them to quite the same standard.
Since my liberal credibility’s firmly intact, I feel comfortable commenting here again. One problem I don’t see addressed here is the distinction between blogger and commenter. If I remember correctly, Thers began his career as a commenter—I vaguely recall seeing him write that somewhere—and commenters are different beasts than bloggers. Take Pablo, here—he has a lackey mentality, such that whenever I see him anywhere else, it’s always in conjunction with what you’ve written (or someone’s written about you). Now, this may be because I don’t read all that many conservative sites—or political ones, for that matter—but his comments are predictable: short and vituperative. No long engagement of the sort required to produce—not even in his posts. Too long a commenter, I’ve come to believe, and you’ll never have the chops to make it as a blogger. Your posts will consist mainly of reactions to other people’s posts, and so what you have, then, are all the makings of an echo chamber. This is not—as I’m hoping to argue in another venue—good for the overall discourse.
Because it’s not discourse so much as the endless repetition of repeated material, played out on this, the largest of virtual stages. If we want it to be otherwise, we have to work hard at it: we have to encourage dissident voices and silence—by a firm policy of deletion—any which don’t help raise the discourse. In practical terms, then, this means people like that Shad fellow leaves with Alfie.
Bane, let’s pretend cmdicely is really a righty, which I think is untrue. I believe I recognize the name from Kevin Drum’s comment section.
if you’re going to clap your hands when someone mocks an enemy for being divorced, on what basis do you criticize someone for mocking Jeff’s stay-at-home status, or his use of Klonopin?
I’m all for donnybrooks when people mock others’ opinions. When it drifts into their personal lives, I think it’s uncalled for.
Ironic that you’re telling me to “grow a pair” when you have already said you hide behind a pseudonym—whereas my name is publicly known. In fact, I was just called one of an UNHOLY TRINITY OF RIGHT-WING BLOGGERS in a post that used my real name, which is no secret.
Which makes it a leetle ironic for you to be telling me to “grow a pair.”
EFG, “internet technology” is just a subset of electronics, in which every electron is identical to every other electron. Whether it’s comments here or cellphone conversations, once it’s out of your immediate possession there are many persons who can alter it at will.
The only thing that protects you when you comment is the integrity of the blog owner. Which makes accusations of lack of integrity somewhat ironic—a person who posts here an accusation that Jeff’s not honest is in fact trusting Jeff’s honesty, taking it for granted that Jeff won’t turn the comment into, say, a paean to the Goodness of George Bush over the commenter’s name. Which makes such an accusation a lie upon its face.
Regards,
Ric
Blogging anonymously is not a right, either. In tbe course of blogging, from what I’ve read so far, your real name is going to be discovered anyway, whether by you or by someone else. I know “outing” someone, deliberately, is what’s at stake in this particular discussion – and I don’t believe that exposing a blogger’s real identity can be seen as deliberate in the long-term. Seems to me that this aspect is getting confused with using a blogger’s personal information in an attack that has nothing to do with what’s being debated.
I’m sorry, Patterico, and I shall henceforth (I think) withdraw from this particular field. And to be clear, I have no idea who Kevin Drum is, and your statements regarding the involvement of non-combatants by cads are absolutely correct.
I merely object to your decidedly schoolmarmish (or is it Rodney Kingish?) tone in these statements:
I am ashamed to see this kind of crap at this blog. It stoops to the level of Sadly, No! commenters who jab at Jeff for not getting his PhD, or taking Klonopin.
This is the kind of ugly personal attack everyone should forego. NTodd may be a huge jerk, but responding in this way is a perfect example of what *not* to do.
I was not aware that you were unfamiliar with the internet.
Oh, and that last line was sarcasm. I just really object to prigs coming on and telling me to ‘mind my manners’ on the battlefield.
Not that you’re a prig. I suppose that journalists have standards. Of some sort.
I’d like to comment Scott, but I’d hate to be just another commentor, blogs being what they are, you know.
You don’t get around much, do you, Scott? And I don’t recall Jeff having anything to do with it when you were defending the concept of verbal rape over at feministe. Do you, blowhard?
Okay, I withdraw my withdrawal. Temporarily.
When you ask that your name and address not be included in the phone book, are you an ‘anonymous coward’? How about being put on a ‘do not call’ list?
Are you tarring all writers who have ever used pseudonyms here with the same brush? Or just the ones you don’t like?
Cops get their information sealed by the DMV upon hire. Are they cowards because of that?
Ric, I was kind of afraid that was the case with the comments. Oh well. Thanks for confirming my sneaking suspicion.
Maybe. I’m not sure, but maybe.
To whom are you addressing this, Bane?
pseudonymous pamphletteering has been around for a long time. I don’t see much difference between that and blogging. I also don’t see any “right” to either blog or publish anonymously. If someone finds out who you are, all bets are off.
I believe it’s always been that way, the fingered writer gets to deny, deny , deny and the offened gets to attack, attack, attack. Point being, don’t own up to the ID. Do that, for a long enough time and eventually you’ll win.
It was up to Thers to protect his identity, especially as he had a habit of throwing rhetorical bombs. Check the Wayback Machine to see what his blog was like. If you want to do that and not eventually get tagged, then there are ways of making sure your tracks are covered. Both in the real as well as the internet world. If he wanted to maintain his anonymity, he should have done so.
And as someone who blogs, and posts comments, under a pseudonym I think I kinda have a dog in this fight. Publishing home addresses, phone numbers and other contact info is distasteful, I wouldn’t personally do it, but not wrong.
Besides, there was a lot of Gary Hart in Ters leading up to all that crap, and it continues.
I remember the original dust up between Haggerty and Jeff. It was Haggerty, hiding behind his alias Thersites who initiated personal attacks against Jeff, for the ’delectation‘ of his readership, both of them.
Jeff demolished his arguments root and branch. People like Haggerty and many of his ideological fellow travellers are small, timid, mean little cowards who can’t abide being seen for what they really are, which is why they hide behind the imaginary cover of anonymity.
Real anonymity does not exist on the internet and if someone really wants to find out who you are, they can. Which makes Haggerty and his ilk not only cowardly, but stupid.
Jeff, I wouldn’t worry about Haggerty or anyone else damaging your reputation. Your words speak well enough for themselves.
Bane, I know basically two things about you.
1) You show no disapproval of people taking anonymous, personal, ugly shots at others, like the fact that they are divorced. In fact, you only disapprove of people like me who criticize such anonymous nasty potshots.
2) You are yourself anonymous, which makes it easy for you to hold position #1.
Your “welcome to the Internet” mentality would have more credibility if you were subject to similar attacks directed at your true identity. Opinions about what is inappropriately personal are a bit more credible coming from those of us who put our identities on the line.
Maybe there’s something more about you that shows you’re a tough guy in real life, like a cop who faces real-world danger every day. But, see, I don’t know that about you. All I know about you are points 1 and 2 above.
Links please, or I’ll have to assume your making things up. (heh)
As only Pablo’s obvious lackey, it appears to me that Scott is doing exactly what he’s criticizing, except for the cover of a little verbosity, which we all no doubt recognize as conferring superior intellect per se.
Does Scott realize that he’s just rather passionately established himself as Pablo’s flip-side lackey? I’m jealous already.
Try this one, Tom.
And for the record, I’m in this for the laughs.
I read into this that there is a separate moral calculus by which the likely consequences of unveiling an anonymous blogger/commenter is weighed before any “outing” occurs. For example, it seems unlikely that any employee of NPR would ever have his employment threatened merely for spewing lefty mendacious bile that is harmful to the reputation of a right-of-center blogger.
It seems like this secondary moral calculus could be more easily codified than the initial question of whether or not the person who is deemed to be abusing anonymity could be fairly unveiled in the context of the argument. That is, what circumscribes the “due diligence” that one might have a moral duty to perform prior to revealing someone’s identity?
Sorry, Jeff, RG specifically fired my neurons.
And once again Scott Eric graciously condescends from his lofty crag of moral and intellectual superiority to Define the Terms of Discourse for us peasants. Tell us, Scott, is a simple “yassuh, boss” and tug o’the forelock sufficient, or do you require the full proskynesis?
I love Scott, actually. He’s the only person I encounter regularly on the Internet who can say less in more words than me. In this case —
Defending Jeff, according to Scott, displays a “lackey mentality”. On the other hand, defending Haggerty—most especially by attacking Jeff in the crudest and most vituperative terms available, with extra points for vulgar profanity—“contributes to the discourse” (or is it “elevates the discourse”, Scott? I get lost).
In short, Scott’s entire blather can be reduced to SteveXX’s tactic: “I win, buuuuuwahahah! Goodbye, shitheads!” Hardly worth the trouble, IMO.
Regards,
Ric
Even though we have new mediums, there are two fundamental things that should never chage regardless of the medium-
Don’t yell FIRE! in a crowded theater, and the right to swing your fist stops in front of my nose. Both of those statements can be used either literally or metaphorically.
proskynesis
You know what they say Pablo, “brevity is the soul of twit”.
Or something like that.
Patterico, I specifically mentioned death threats against me an my family, and more recently I have become collateral damage from Jeff’s ‘Biggest Fan’, as well as some of our swarthy desert brethren with whom I hold ideological disagreements with. You should see my sitemeter sometimes. Do they even HAVE computers in Saudi Arabia? Algiers? Somalia?
And stating that ‘shit happens’, does not necessarily imply one’s approval of shit.
I thought you were a lawyer?
Ric, what makes you think I find the following statement true?
I hereby apologize if anyone is offended for my posting information that NTodd posted himself on HIS OWN BLOG.
P.S.—one may indeed legally yell “FIRE!” in a crowded theater. Next canard?
My “real” name is indeed Chris M. Dicely.
Out ME! I DARE YOU!!! NOBODY WILL KNOW MY NAME IS ROBB ALLEN!
Oh. Poop.
When I started blogging (of which I’m just a “Hey, this interests me” type), I refused to hide my name (I think here it shows up as Sharp as a Marble but that was an oversight) as using my name tempers my arguments. I’m a bomb thrower myself and would revert to vileness at the Marcotte level if I hid where nobody would find me. So, I nipped that in the bud from day one.
Personally, I think if you truly want anonymity, stay off the Interweb. Outing a name in my view is the same as pulling back the curtain to expose the little man pulling all the levers.
GURPS?
It’s not the information, Chris, it’s the nasty commentary surrounding it that offends.
Oh, Scott’s back! Since you’re here, would you mind telling us what exactly you know about making it as a blogger? Not that I aspire to it, I’m just interested in how you come by such knowledge having not come anywhere near that mark yourself.
So, I guess it wouldn’t matter to you that NTodd ADMITTED ON HIS OWN BLOG he broke his own wife’s nose and that, yes, she preferred a horse’s dick to his tiny little pecker?!
I think Scott is deliberately narrowcasting there. It looks like an interesting blog for people who are interested in that sort of thing. And there’s a cool picture of a chicken.
No, it still wouldn’t belong in this discussion, Chris. But damn, you got a link for that?
Okay, so I got bored, and clicked on Gateway Pundit, which linked me to some guy named Doug Ross, who linked me to lgf, which links to a Daily Krass diary which contains, apparently in all seriousness, the following question:
So I’m gonna go remind myself how ignernt these lefties can be.
Speaking of which, did any of you see Carl Levin’s performance this morning on TV? He says the Democrats aren’t trying to tie the president’s hands, they’re merely trying to find a way to force him to change his strategy. So, that’s okay, then, right?? When it comes to statesmanship, he’s right up there with Dick Durbin.
TW: love52 I DO NOT!!
There. Updated my info. That’s better. Sharp as a Marble is my blog, not me personally. Really, it’s just a description. DumbAsABoxOfHammers.com seemed too much to type.
Aw, Robb…
I thought “Sharp as a Marble” was kinda clever, actually. But, I’ve been known to be easily impressed.
TW: I am the least32 of the patsies.
Anonymity is acceptable, even admirable when it evinces a desire to stand solely on the strength of ones words and nothing else.
Creating an alternate persona for the express purpose of avoiding any potential consequences of your speech is not truly anonymity. It is a concerted effort to maintain a known credible identity, and to bank on that identity, with the desire that whatever that identity does it will not reflect back upon the source individual. As such it is a form of double life. Not necessarily sinister, but always questionable and always risky. At best a gentleman’s game.
The limit of such anonymity is as well defined as any other right. Just as your right to extend your fist ends at the tip of my nose, your right to write anonymously ends as soon as the subject of your writing becomes any other individual regardless of their own lack of anonymity.
So we should respect an individuals desire to maintain their dual identity to the extent that their persona also respects every other individual’s right to their own identity. In practice meaning that as long as their persona keeps to subject matter that is not expressly personal we should not seek to publicly breach their persona.
Cross that line, target your ‘anonymous’ writings at someone else in particular, and you immediately forfeit any right to shield your true identity. The gloves come off and know that you are subject to outing at the whim of the targeted individual or any one else.
It is only when these personal attacks approach libel, or are intended to incite violenceâ€â€or when they are being deployed as a cynical and dishonest way to discredit the person in question (a McCarthyesque tactic if ever there was one)â€â€that the ethics of commanding anonymity should, in my opinion, be open to re-examination.
This does seem about right–if anything, it doesn’t go far enough. If someone was digging through my personal history in order to say nasty things about me online (true or false) I wouldn’t feel any obligation not to uncover their identity and out them (their identity, and any details of their life).
It would be important to reiterate the distinctions between arguing with someone’s ideas, making lame-but-not-libelous ad hominem attacks, libel, and digging through someone’s personal life. The first two–arguing about ideas and throwing around insults–should absolutely not result in anyone’s anonymity being threatened, no matter how dumb the arguments or how vile the insults, so long as it’s not libelous.
For instance, if I started a web site to convince people that Jeff got two speeding tickets back in 1994, I should have no right to my anonymity (because I’m either libeling him or digging through what should be private history)
But if I called Jeff a “dog-humper with second rate ideas,” I would be entitled to keep any anonymity/privacy. Or if I wanted to make snide remarks about medication Jeff has publicly admitted to being on (Klonopin), that wouldn’t justify taking out my anonymity (although it would make me a total douche bag)
To bring this in line with the NTodd example, if it’s true that NTodd has admitted those things on his blog, then any anonymous person should be allowed to comment on that without worrying about being outed. What you say might mark you as a total jerk, but it wouldn’t justify being outed.
There’s no way you’ll ever be able to achieve consensus with leftists in this because of their view that “the personal is political” and vice versa. They equate vigorous criticism with physical violence, so of course they would equate vigorous criticism with violating someone’s privacy.
I would have to make a big, big exception here for politicians. Digging up their personal lives, and other things they would rather remain private, is fair game.
There’s also the problem of secondhand spreading of this information. If some anonymous blogger repeats Haggerty’s lies against you, Jeff, should that anonymous blogger’s privacy be fair game? If you leave the NTodd comments on your blog, and they turn out to be libelous, should people be able to use that as an excuse to violate your privacy? Those seem like much tougher questions.
I used Bourdieu, who provided a lot of the theoretical framework for my dissertation on modern Irish censorship
Look, I can do that without that Frenchy wanker:
!. Eamonn de Valera
2. Official censorship in Eire
3. Constitutional, formal, and informal influence of the Church
equalled Irish censorship in the “old days” (c., oh, 1975?) Just slowly remove influence of all three (de Valera’s dead, gov’t censors less – because of other 2 factors here, influence of Church waning), and you have “modern Irish censorship”.
So where’s my PhD?
Now, I need to go eat some raw red meat, the stuff on which BLOG WARS!!! are built.
P.S. FECK!!!
Classic asymmetry. Since you are comprised of your voice on the intartubes, you had better look to it. Unfortunately, the Prisoner’s Dilemma is what one’s reduced to when The Golden Rule won’t work.
Most of us have seen that on the occasions he’s forced into it, Jeff’s been reluctant to drop the big one online, even on the most egregious opponent, and folks out for their Official Moonbat Merit Badge have coveted getting into scrapes with him forever, so they can go show their bona-fides (with carefully selected redactions) to appreciative audiences. It’s always been the case, when I’ve seen it, that he’s gone out of the way to give people an out, often more than once.
I wish that I could say that I’ve lived up to Patterico’s standards of civility, but I haven’t always. On the other hand, I don’t stand behind any kind of pseudonym, so I’m willing to take whatever comes as the result of my indiscretions.
What would be required to reform discourse on the intartubes? Humility on all sides. Unfortunately, I don’t see that happening, given what I’ve seen. These pseudonyms, they are extremely self righteous.
…more recently I have become collateral damage from Jeff’s ‘Biggest Fan’…
Pretty soon you’re going to have enough people for a class action suit.
On the internet, no one can tell you’re a dog—but only until you leave enough dog$#!t on other people’s lawns.
So it seems that the main point is that if someone has been civil on the interwebs, and has not disgraced himself by putting their name to childish attacks (fun attacks, as in 125% of my e-comments, are another story; I don’t always post them all), they do not need anonymity, ceteris paribus.
If someone has been civil on the internet and needs anonymity–such as just collecting a paycheck while working in the belly of the [’enemy’] ideological beast–it is pretty dickheaded to remove that anonymity.
If someone has been a jerk on the intratubes and either wants or needs anonymity, eh, too bad. SHould have kept those stones in your own yard, pal.
Pretty much sum it all up for everybody?
I’ll second that.
BTW, I can vouch for Pablo’s total toadiness and douche-bag-ility.
He almost never contributes anything of substance to ANY conversation. Many are the times when I can sit back and imagine him licking the computer screen, and slapping the keyboard; “Nuh nuh nuh…I want pie…nuh nuh nuh…”
And he is one of Jeff’s brighter retards.
Just don’t ask what he keeps in the basement!
I’m still not persuaded that it’s so easy to claim complete absolution for the consequences of ripping away someone’s anonymity. It’s all fun until the person you out loses his job and goes all Columbine at the office the next day.
Could it perhaps be that you are really a dark-side lackey? Oh well, I guess instead we’ll just have to take a Thersites Poll to decide this matter. Then a Poll about the Poll, and so on.
Daryl,
Good analogy, and it brings to mind the case of Lane Hudson. If anyone has made a case for his right to anonymity, I haven’t heard it.
Verc, ixnay on the ingthay in the asementbay! You don’t want to be outing that. And, um, is there any pie left?
Hey happyfeet, don’t participate then.
On the flip side of this, of course, we have people slandering, insulting and harassing someone else. Imagine the kids in high school having someone make fun of others on their Facebook and Myspace accounts.
You have the marginal issue of “outing” someone on the internet as being a douchebag. Then you have the harassment itself.
Keep in mind, nobody picked Sylvia Dorchester, the Young Democrat first-year pledge, who nobody ever heard of and now having heard of them, nobody will ever remember, who likes windy walks on the beach and puppies.
Nope, somebody threw a punch and the fight went to ground, and the pretentious prick broke his birth-control-eye-glasses.
THe lesson? Keep your hands to yourselves.
Actually, I don’t think it’s “fun” at all. And in fact, I would argue that we should go out of our way to avoid doing it.
But there are circumstances under which I think it fair to say enough is enough. And if the fallout is that the person loses a job and shoots up an office building, well, that’s not the fault of the victim.
After all, nobody who legitimately identifies a felon would be held to account should the felon, once arrested, hang himself in prison.
A person going postal has nothing to do with being canned for posting views that an employer finds offensive and disruptive to the work environment. Just like I could quit without notice if my job started requiring women to wear headscarfs and cover their faces. Well, some of them could use a little covering, but that’s beside the point.
You do not have true anonymity on the web, period. It’s a gamble YOU have to decide on to determine if the risk of ‘being outed’, and make no mistake about it – you become acerbic enough you’re going to make enemies who will out you, versus having what you want to say said in public.
Me? I took away that weapon from my enemies and stick with absolute banality to protect me any my family.
I would like to believe that it is noble and fair to go to all the trouble of researching an anonymous stranger who is typing bad things about you. I would also like to believe that putting personal information into the public domain somehow evens the discursive playing field. I would also like to think that such an outing is making an important point about the need to enforce some nebulous rule of netiquette. But I just can’t.
In every case, its seems to me that posting personal information is a vindictive, malicious, and retaliatory act specifically intended to cause harm to the unmasked. It just seems like there are better ways to handle these situations.
Dan – I thought we all agreed not to use “comprise” anymore, no? Now you’ve got me all confused again.
Verc – thanks for that mental image of Pablo.
And here’s a tidbit from that other story I was talking about. Off Topic, I know, but y’all will enjoy this one:
Arf!!
TW: Someone has14 been sniffin’ somthing
Well, if life were nothing but absolutes then you’d be first in line on the high road, cynn. Outing someone out of vindictiveness makes you a dick. Outing someone who is using a shield of anonymity to attack you is just good tactics.
I fight in the open which puts my road several levels above yours.
That’s true enough. It would still suck, though. Mostly I just like the part where we talk about how cool it is to assert liberal democratic values in the Middle East.
Um, you’ve lost me, Bane. I was talking about bloggers, not writers in general, or people on the do-not-call list or even people who prefer to have unlisted phone numbers. Can you try again, please?
I think we are all flagellating ourselves over the wrong thing; Jeff’s place was at war with these other people.
His work was criticized, unfairly, but also his professional work too. He and his family were the subject of personal attack. Nothing like that happened to anyone else.
Btw, does anyone even realize that this is Jeff’s profession? He is a writer. He has a few other things going on too, but we are his business, his clients, his customer base.
THose “leftists” at those other blogs were effectively trying to put Jeff out of work.
Who has suffered more? Jeff whose history of being stalked on the internet we all know or Thersites who may have had one person at one time say something crude about his family?
Hell, the next month, Jeff had at least TWO PEOPLE have multiple multiple incidences of much worse. Do we blame Thersites for those incidences?
No. But he blames Jeff for that one comment (which may or may not be legit). [Personally I’m in the THersites LIHOP camp. Heh.]
I also don’t recall calling anybody an anonymous coward, so now I don’t even know if you were addressing my comments, per se. Again, please clarify.
What harm, cynn? Take Thersites, for instance. Has he been harmed? Embarrassed, yes, because he’s written so many things he doesn’t want to be publicly associated with. But then, his clear intent was to humiliate Jeff.
So what harm has come to him beyond the very same thing which he hoped to inflict on Jeff?
Okay, cynn, but show me where on the intartubes you’ve denounced outing someone for his/her sexual preference, and then I’ll say you’re consistent.
A question Mr. Patterico, sir. If I may? Have you floated this manifesto to the fine folks at The Daily Kos?
Mr. Goldstein. Haggerty? A phd at a community college? Isn’t that kinda like being an 18 year old cub scout?
Just a small point, but,
When you find yourself busted for doing something you shouldn’t be doing, you’re a weenie if you try to shift blame to the one who blew your cover.
If you want to be anonymous, don’t give people a motive for discovering your identity. Simple.
For civility’s sake, I must strenuously object to the cruel calling of a “commenter” of this “community” a “lackey,” especially a commenter whose nom de keyboard is Hispanic! Especially, when said bigoted slur originates with a commenter whose nom de racial slur is decidedly “Aryan.”
And now for the coup de grace, one only needs to add a “b” to the hideously inappropriate slur proferred by said Aryan to venture so far beyond the pale, the bourne, the Christ knows what, to, to, to sear your abomination in our memories forever. Scott, you’ll never work in this cyberville again.
I fart in your general direction.
We know, cynn. We know.
You can take whatever road you want, Robb Allen. Good tactics? Whatever. I have seen how Jeff has been mercilessly baited here and elsewhere, but you know what? Yeah, this IS Jeff’s job, and controversy is great blog content. He’s a public figure; he knows what he’s doing.
And Dan, I routinely out people for their sexual performance, but never preference. And I use their names!
This has the ring of clarity I think – definitely puts my qualms to rest anyway. Cynn?
Cynn, don’t harass someone online. Be an angel.
Because we aren’t clergy in here. We ain’t your doctor, lawyers or shrinks.
There is no oath of confidence that we must keep or be drumrolled out of a professional guild.
Its not like Jeff published the names, addresses, birthdates, phone and social security numbers for the top one hundred librul blogs which caused 100 little massacres as progressives mastered the arts of Colombine cover concerts.
So and so was a dickhead, Jeff called him on it. And then as the little meatball couldn’t back up the noise he talked, what with these manly margeritas in his hands, no way man!, it got ugly.
Thersites got pushed over from the one leg still on the ground, and he broke his glasses and someone mentioned that this guy–who was supposedly an expert–was actually a lightweight prof at a lightweight college.
Gee, go figure that people might want to find out that information when that someone (Thirsty) is making his case based on his supposed command of the genre. Heh.
There is virtually no case to be made for anonymity from Thirsty. None. The supreme court justices do not refer to themselves as “Iron Leader”, “Grasshopper 1”, “CrazyGirl69”, and all. Engineers, philosopher’s and mathematicians do not reference the KitchyGuy!1!! Theorem or TheGreatBlackMamba’s collected works, February 21, 2005, from 4:30am to 6:45am @ digg.com.
Thersites credentials were a very real part of the debate. There was absolutely nothing wrong with finding out whether the guy had even graduated college, or even junior high.
KitchyGuy’s already taken? Damn.
Personally cynn, I don’t care. The thought of people hiding behind pseudonyms so they can insult and malign others without the possibility of recourse garners no sympathy from me when one of their targets fight back.
On my moral high road, there aren’t any toll booths or potholes. There are, however, hairpin turns and steep grades.
Mr. Jeff Goldstein,
Last year when I posted on this (Your) website, you treated me fairly and didn’t delete ANY of my comment’s. I was respectful to you, and you were respectful to me. THEN,
in this blog of yours this year:
A Brief Respite From the Blog Wars? Aw, fuck it. LetÂ’s get it on …
A Brief Respite From the Blog Wars? Aw, fuck it. LetÂ’s get it on. [Pablo] …
Don’t forget to add protein wisdom to your blogroll! …
https://proteinwisdom.com/index.php?/weblog/entry/22351/ – Cached
You blog this comment I made at The Sadly No! website:
“Must you “KEEP†putting up the image (face) of Michelle Malkin?
How about Patrick Frey’s (Patterico) face?
Or better yet, how about both faces (Frey’s and Malkin’s) at the same time?”
And then you TRASH ME with this comment of yours:
“Oooh, a strike at the very heart of the rightwing noise machine! Pwned!”
So Mr. Goldstein? A few question’s sir. I’ve never said a derrogatory statement about you. So what is the REAL REASON you trashed me, FIRST?
And why didn’t you use my name? It’s right there.
I post under my real name. Are you afraid to use my name in a blog of yours?
MarioGeorgeNitrini111
mariogeorgenitrini111
______________________
The OJ Simpson Case
Oh, good god, Gorgeous George, reread the title of the post, specifically the part where it says [Pablo].
Sounds like an amusement park, Robb Allen. Seriously, Jeff asked for input, and as a hesitant leftie, I gave it. But I guess one of my qualms here is specific. One cannot put Jeff out of work; Jeff works for himself, and is frankly unassailable, unless some future employer wants to dig through the dirt.
Now I guess the verc’s finessed the question: If someone presents themselves on the internet as an authority, is it OK to dredge their personal history looking for stinkbombs? I think that’s rhetorically shaky; they should stand or fall on their own merits. But what do I know? New media and all.
Also, George, at the bottom of the post there is a “Posted by Pablo” thingy.
Let’s just let that sit for a moment. Marinate. Why would Jeff post as Pablo? Is Jeff really Pablo? Then what the hell is Pablo doing commenting on Jeff’s post if this is Jeff’s blog? Is Pablo really Jeff?
The mind, it turns and spins with possibilities.
[…] anyone out there who believes that Jeff’s attitude to this latest dust-up is ad hoc, here’s a post he wrote awhile back, with which I agree. Posted by Dan Collins @ 1:27 am | Trackback Share […]
[…] where I stand on certain issues and why I believe the way I do — I’m going to reprint this earlier post that tackles the ethics of revealing the names of anonymous […]